White‐leg shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei
© Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/www.scandposters.com
Nicaragua Ponds
November 14, 2018 Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher
Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Final Seafood Recommendation
Farmed white‐leg shrimp from ponds in Nicaragua Criterion Score Rank Critical? C1 Data 3.86 YELLOW C2 Effluent 4.00 YELLOW NO C3 Habitat 0.27 RED YES C4 Chemicals 0.00 RED NO C5 Feed 6.19 YELLOW NO C6 Escapes 3.00 RED NO C7 Disease 4.00 YELLOW NO
C8X Source ‐2.00 GREEN NO C9X Wildlife mortalities ‐4.00 YELLOW NO C10X Secondary species escape 0.00 GREEN Total 15.32 Final score (0‐10) 2.19
OVERALL RANKING Final Score 2.19 Initial rank RED Red criteria 3
Interim rank RED FINAL RANK
Critical Criteria? YES RED
Scoring note – scores range from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates very poor performance and 10 indicates the aquaculture operations have no significant impact. Criteria 8X, 9X, and 10X are exceptional criteria, where 0 indicates no impact and a deduction of ‐10 reflects a very significant impact. Two or more Red criteria result in a Red final result.
Summary The final score for farmed white‐leg shrimp from Nicaragua is 2.19 out of 10 and with three red criteria, the final recommendation is “Avoid”.
2 Executive Summary
This assessment covers the production of white‐leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) in ponds in Nicaragua and focuses on semi‐intensive farming, which represents >80% of total harvests and a majority of exports to the United States. The industry is concentrated in the northwest of the country in the Estero Real at the southern end of the Gulf of Fonseca and produces approximately 25,000 metric tons (MT) per year (24,557 MT in 2015) from a total of approximately 14,700 hectares (ha) of ponds. Exports to the United States have been variable but were 1,839 MT in 2017 (down from approximately 5,000 MT in the mid‐2000s).
This Seafood Watch assessment includes criteria covering impacts associated with effluent, habitats, wildlife and predator interactions, chemical use, feed production, escapes, introduction of secondary species (other than the farmed species), disease, the source stock, and general data availability.
Data on Nicaragua shrimp farms were generally scarce, and typically of questionable temporal validity. Information requests to the Nicaraguan Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INPESCA), the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), and to producers and feed mills were all unsuccessful. Academic research in the region is also limited and often dated. Data from the producers are also scarce with the exception of one useful 2018 audit report from two farms certified to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council’s Farmed Shrimp standard. Overall, the final score for Criterion 1 – Data was 3.9 out of 10.
There is very little information with which to assess the effluent impacts of Nicaraguan shrimp farms directly, particularly cumulative impacts from all the farms in the Estero Real, but information from local communities/authorities and government reports show some concerns. The available specific data on nutrient inputs (primarily from an ASC audit report of two farms) indicate that although both feed and nitrogen fertilizer are used, water exchange is relatively low, and it appears likely that at least the large farms have relatively low nitrogen discharges per ton of production (20.9 kg N per MT of shrimp). There are legal requirements in place relating to farm effluent concentration limits, but there is little accessible information on the management and regulatory systems in place to address total discharges from any one farm or the potential cumulative impacts from multiple farms. Given the limited information, the Risk‐ Assessment was used and the final score for Criterion 2 – Effluent is 4 out of 10.
The vast majority of Nicaragua’s shrimp farms are located in the Estero Real, an ecologically important area that includes the country’s largest extension of mangrove forests. The majority of shrimp farms were built on hypersaline mud and sand flats within broader mangrove areas, with little direct loss of mangrove trees; however, these sand and mud flats represent part of the broader ecosystem, and the seasonal dry forest has been considered to be the most endangered terrestrial ecosystem in the tropics. The Estero Real is a shorebird reserve of hemispheric importance for resident and migratory birds, and areas of greatest concentration
3 of birds are under the direct influence of thousands of hectares of shrimp farming. The farm activities directly influence the feeding habitat and refuge of shorebirds. Overall, the wetlands (i.e., including the salt flat areas) in the Estero Real region have been greatly reduced, especially towards the mouth of the river where they have been converted into shrimp ponds, and although the majority of pond construction occurred prior to 1999, there has been substantial construction since the area was protected (in 1983) and designated as a Ramsar site (in 2001).
These habitat conversions represent an extensive change to the estuarine ecosystem, and the ecological effects of changes to the hydrology of the broader habitats due to pond construction continue to be uncertain. The regulatory systems in Nicaragua for managing high‐value habitats are complex and unclear. There is evidence of permitting processes in place in some (independently certified) farms, but there is little readily available content on habitat connectivity, cumulative impacts or on enforcement. Satellite images show recent construction of ponds in salt flats and dry forests in the last 5 years. Overall, the final score for Criterion 3 – Habitat of 0.27 out of 10, reflects the critical concerns that remain regarding the habitat impacts of shrimp farms in Nicaragua.
There are no reliable data available on the current use of chemicals in Nicaraguan shrimp farms. Three antibiotics are currently authorized for use in aquaculture in Nicaragua, and there is now‐ dated evidence that one of them (oxytetracycline) was used by a small proportion of farms in the past (2010), and circumstantial evidence that a second (enrofloxacin) has been supplied in medicated feeds to shrimp farms in 2014. The only specific recent farm data from a total of four farms audited by the ASC and the European Commission show antibiotics (or other chemicals) have not been used. Without any recent evidence on chemical use from all shrimp farms in Nicaragua, or data from feed mills and/or the relevant authorities, the use of both highly‐ and critically‐important antibiotics is largely unknown, and the final score for Criterion 4 – Chemical Use is 0 out of 10 on a precautionary basis.
The majority of shrimp culture (semi‐intensive) in Nicaragua relies on artificial food in pellet form, in addition to natural food in the ponds stimulated by added fertilizer. Information requests to three feed companies were not met, but useful data on those companies’ feeds were available in a 2018 ASC audit report; as such, they were considered to be a useful reflection on the country as a whole. Using a (precautionary) economic feed conversion ratio of 1.56 and an average inclusion of 14.5% fishmeal and 1.5% fish oil in the feeds, the Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) was 0.7 for fishmeal (the fish oil came from byproducts and was therefore not included in the calculation). This indicates that from first principles, 0.7 tons of wild fish are required to produce one ton of farmed shrimp. The source fisheries for fishmeal were not known, and the adjusted Wild Fish Use score is 6.9 out of 10. A net edible protein loss of 55.8 % was calculated based on an assumption that all non‐marine feed ingredients were edible crops. A combined ocean and land area of 7.0 ha is required to supply the amount of feed ingredients necessary to produce one ton of farmed shrimp. Overall, the final score for Criterion 5 – Feed is 6.2 out of 10.
4 Shrimp can escape from ponds during daily water exchanges and specific events such as harvest. In addition, the area is prone to flooding in peak rainy seasons and the destruction of a quarter of the shrimp ponds in Nicaragua during Hurricane Mitch in 1998 highlighted the storm and flood risk. The large majority of production in Nicaragua is considered to be based on multi‐ generation selectively‐bred broodstock with genetic and phenotypic differentiation from wild shrimp populations. Therefore, although the risk of genetic introgression to the genetically diverse wild populations is perhaps low, the high escape risk means that when Factors 6.1 and 6.2 are combined, the final score Criterion 6 – Escapes is 3 out of 10.
Shrimp farming globally, including Nicaragua, has suffered a series of bacterial and viral disease outbreaks, causing serious economic challenges for the industry. No recent data on routine disease monitoring could be obtained from Nicaragua, but now‐dated information shows a wide range of pathogens have been reported, with the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), necrotizing hepatopancreatitis (NHP), and bacterial vibriosis being the most common. Recent anecdotal evidence shows that emerging global shrimp pathogens such as early mortality syndrome (EMS) are also present in Nicaragua. There is no evidence of impacts of farmed shrimp diseases affecting wild shrimp populations in Nicaragua, but examples of disease transmission can be found elsewhere (e.g., in Mexico). With limited information, the Seafood Watch Risk Assessment was used, and based on the open nature of the production system, which remains vulnerable to the introduction, amplification, and discharge of pathogens, the final score for Criterion 7 – Disease is 4 out of 10.
No current information on the scale of use of captive‐bred broodstock, postlarvae, or juveniles could be found. Dated information from 2009 to 2010 shows that although 100% of artisanal and extensive producers still used wild‐caught juveniles (potentially from both passive and active collection), 75% of semi intensive producers at that time used captive‐bred sources. The use of captive bred stocks is likely to have increased since then; yet, while the exact figure is considered to be somewhere between 75% and 100%, and likely closer to the latter, there is no information with which to make an informed estimation as to the current level. The figure of 100% captive‐bred stocks was used in order to maintain consistency with Criterion 6 – Escapes where 100% was used on a precautionary basis.1 The final score for Criterion 8X is therefore a deduction of –0 out of –10.
Shrimp ponds attract a variety of predators, particularly birds, but no specific data on predator mortalities in Nicaragua were found. A list of relevant local species in the ASC audit reports included several species of birds, but they were all listed as “Least Concern” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This gives some confidence that any mortalities are unlikely to significantly impact the species’ population sizes, and the final score for Criterion 9X – Predator and Wildlife Mortalities is –4 out of –10.
1 Note that if the figure of 75% was used, the final score for this criterion would be a deduction of –2 out of –10 and the overall final recommendation for this assessment would remain the same. 5 No data could be found on current live animal importations, but though it is possible that some broodstock continue to be imported into Nicaragua for breeding programs, these would be considered to come from specialist breeding facilities with high biosecurity. Although it is also possible that there is some international exchange of broodstock or postlarvae with neighboring Honduras, these regions share the same waterbody in the Gulf of Fonseca. Therefore, trans‐waterbody shipments of live animals that risk the unintentional introduction of non‐native species are not currently considered to be significant. The final score for Criterion 10X – Escape of Secondary Species is a deduction of –0 out of –10.
Overall, this assessment of white‐leg shrimp aquaculture in Nicaragua was limited by poor data availability. The final numerical score is 2.2 out of 10, and there is a critical conservation concern regarding habitat conversion and high concerns regarding chemical use and escapes. The final recommendation is “Avoid.”
6 Table of Contents
Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 8 Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation ...... 8 Species Overview ...... 8 Analysis ...... 13 Scoring guide ...... 13 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability ...... 14 Criterion 2: Effluents ...... 17 Criterion 3: Habitat ...... 22 Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use ...... 32 Criterion 5: Feed ...... 35 Criterion 6: Escapes ...... 40 Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions ...... 43 Criterion 8X: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries ...... 45 Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities ...... 47 Criterion 10X: Escape of secondary species ...... 48 Acknowledgements ...... 50 References ...... 51 About Seafood Watch® ...... 56 Guiding Principles ...... 57 Appendix 1 – Example of recent dry forest conversion ...... 58 Appendix 1 ‐ Data points and all scoring calculations ...... 61
7 Introduction
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
Species White‐leg shrimp, Litopenaeus vannamei (formerly known as Penaeus vannamei).
Geographic Coverage Nicaragua.
Production Method(s) Ponds (semi‐intensive).
Species Overview
Brief overview of the species Litopenaeus vannamei live in tropical marine habitats and are native to the Eastern Pacific coast from Sonora, Mexico in the north to Tumbes in Peru in the south. As such, they are native to the Pacific coast of Nicaragua. As for all Penaeid species, adults live and spawn in the open ocean, while postlarvae (PL) migrate inshore to spend their juvenile, adolescent, and sub‐adult stages in coastal estuaries, lagoons, or mangrove areas (FAO 2006).
Production system Shrimp are farmed in ponds in Nicaragua, located primarily in the north‐west of the country (Figure 1, and more detail in Figure 6) along the estuary Estero Real in the Chinandega department, where 98% of the national production is concentrated (Rivas 2013). The remainder is in the Léon department (adjoining Chinandega department to the south, and therefore also on the Pacific Coast). The focus of this assessment is on dominant production in the Estero Real.
8 Chinandega
Figure 1: Estero Real Region (in red), adapted from (Benessaiah 2008).
Shrimp farming in ponds can be managed at differing intensities, mostly defined by stocking densities, water exchange, the use of mechanical aeration, and the reliance on artificial feed. According the National Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INPESCA), Nicaragua has a mix of extensive, semi‐intensive, intensive, and artisanal production, but in 2015, 83% of total shrimp harvests came from semi‐intensive ponds (INPESCA, 2016), and these are the focus of this assessment.
As an approximate guide (from FAO, 2009), semi‐intensive ponds of typically 1 to 5 hectares (ha) are stocked with hatchery‐produced seeds at 10 to 30 post larvae (PL)/m². Regular water exchange is by pumping, pond depth is 1.0 to 1.2 m and aeration is at best minimal. The shrimp feed on natural foods enhanced by pond fertilization, supplemented by formulated diets 2 to 3 times daily. Production yields in semi‐intensive ponds range from 500 to 2000 kg/ha/crop, with 2 crops per year.
No robust data on daily water exchange rates in Nicaragua could be found, but the FAO country profile (FAO, 2005) reports that high water exchange rates (that were in order of 10 to 20% per day) were reduced to close to zero in the early 2000s after an outbreak of white‐spot disease in 1999. In 2001, traditional semi‐intensive shrimp ponds in Nicaragua were reported to be managed with zero water exchange through the dry season to avoid introduction of disease
9 (Cummings 2001). In contrast, recent specific audited examples available from two Nicaraguan farms certified to the Aquaculture Stewardship Council’s (ASC) Shrimp Standard, report a 4% water exchange/day (ASC 2018).
Production Statistics Figure 2 shows production of farmed shrimp began in Nicaragua in the early 1990s, increasing to a peak of 30,528 MT in 2014 followed by a decline to 24,557 MT in 2015 (data from FAO2 and INPESCA’s annual fisheries and aquaculture report).3 INPESCA data also show the total pond area increased accordingly but was relatively stable at approximately 11,000 ha from 2006 to 2013 (Figure 3). There was a sharp increase to 14,742 ha in 2014, but due to additional categories4 included in the INPESCA data for 2014 and 2015, it is not clear if this is a genuine increase in total pond area.
Figure 2: Production of farmed shrimp in Nicaragua (1991 to 2006 data from FAO, Fishstat, and 2006 to 2015 from INPESCA).
2 UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. Fishstat. 3 Anuario Pesquero y Acuicola; INPESCA, http://www.inpesca.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=100 4 Prior to 2014, production was categorized under companies (empresas) and cooperatives (cooperativas). From 2014, collectives (collectivos) and individuals (individuales) were added. The definitions of each are not immediately clear in the INPESCA document, but production is dominated by empresas. 10 Figure 3: Total shrimp pond area in Nicaragua, from 2006 to 2015. Data from INPESCA.
Semi‐intensive production dominates the total area of shrimp ponds in Nicaragua; data from INPESCA (2016) shows that in 2015, the total area of ponds was 14,742 ha. Ninety percent (13,314 ha) was semi‐intensive, compared to 7% in artisanal production and 3% in extensive production. There was 418,562 lb of shrimp harvested from intensive systems, but the pond area does not register (i.e., is zero) in these reported figures. See Figure 4.
Figure 4: Breakdown of Nicaraguan shrimp production by categorized intensity. Data analyzed from INPESCA’s annual fisheries and aquaculture reports.
Two endemic species, white shrimp (L. vannamei) and the blue shrimp (L. stylirostris) were initially cultured (FAO 2005), but production of blue shrimp remained low and no recent
11 references can be found to indicate any significant ongoing production. Data from INPESCA are not distinguished by species, and for the purposes of this assessment, production is considered to be dominated by white shrimp.
Import and Export Sources and Statistics In 2015, Nicaragua exported 97% of all the shrimps produced in its territory (23,850 tons) (INPESCA 2016). Figure 5 shows US imports of shrimp from Nicaragua have been highly variable, fluctuating between approximately 2,000 MT and 5,000 MT in the last ten years, with the most recent data showing 1,839 MT were imported in 2017 (USDA ERS 2018).
Figure 5: US shrimp imports from Nicaragua. Note these data do not distinguish farmed from wild shrimp. Data from USDA ERS (2018).
Total exports of seafood from Nicaragua (all species) to the US have been relatively stable since 2009 at approximately 9,000 MT (8,625 MT in 2015), and although the export destinations for farmed shrimp are not specified, the main export countries for Nicaraguan seafood (all species) are the US, Spain, France, and China (INPESCA 2016).
Common and Market Names
Scientific Name Litopenaeus vannamei Common Name (English) White shrimp, white‐leg shrimp, Pacific white shrimp, Pacific white‐leg shrimp. Camarón patiblanco, Camarón blanco Spanish French Crevette à pattes blanches
12 Product forms
INPESCA (2016) indicates farmed shrimp are exported from Nicaragua as whole shrimp or tails; fresh and frozen.
Analysis
Scoring guide With the exception of Criteria 8X, 9X and 10X, all scores result in a zero to ten final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of ten indicates high performance. In contrast, the two exceptional factors result in negative scores from zero to minus ten, and in these cases zero indicates no negative impact. The full Seafood Watch Aquaculture Criteria that the following scores relate to are available here: http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/sfw_aboutsfw.aspx The full data values and scoring calculations are available in Annex 1.
Note: the large majority (>80%) of shrimp production in Nicaragua occurs in semi‐intensive ponds, and it is assumed here that this production method is responsible for the large majority of imports to the United States. Therefore, while different practices may occur in the minor production systems (potentially with greater environmental concerns), this assessment is based solely on semi‐intensive production for export.
13 Criterion 1: Data quality and availability
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: poor data quality and availability limits the ability to assess and understand the impacts of aquaculture production. It also does not enable informed choices for seafood purchasers, nor enable businesses to be held accountable for their impacts. . Sustainability unit: the ability to make a robust sustainability assessment . Principle: having robust and up‐to‐date information on production practices and their impacts publicly available.
Criterion 1 Summary Data Category Data Score Industry or production statistics 7.5 Management 2.5 Effluent 2.5 Habitat 5.0 Chemical use 2.5 Feed 5.0 Escapes 5.0 Disease 5.0 Source of stock 2.5 Predators and wildlife 2.5 Introduced species 2.5 Other – (e.g. GHG emissions) Not Applicable Total
C1 Data Final Score (0‐10) 3.9 YELLOW
Brief Summary Data on Nicaragua shrimp farms were generally scarce, and typically of questionable temporal validity. Requests to INPESCA and MARENA, and to producers and feed mills were all unsuccessful. Academic research in the region is also limited and often dated. Data from the producers are also scarce with the exception of one useful ASC audit report which helped inform several criteria. Overall, the final score for Criterion 1 ‐ Data was 3.9 out of 10.
Justification of Rating Although various sources of data were obtained for this assessment, written and verbal requests to the Nicaraguan Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (El Instituto Nicaragüense de la Pesca y Acuicultura; INPESCA) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (Ministerio del Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales, Medio Ambiente; MARENA), in addition to producers and feed companies in Nicaragua received no responses at the time of writing. Data limitations are discussed in each criterion as relevant and noted below.
14 Industry and Production Statistics Production statistics on the shrimp farming industry are published annually (Anuarios Pesqueros) by INPESCA,5 but are currently 2 to 3 years out of date (2015 is the latest year available, published in 2016). Other data on production are available from the FAO with a similar timeline. INPESCA breaks down the production data according to the type of production system, and also provides figures on the total pond areas of each since 2006. Some minor uncertainties exist in statistical categorization, but overall, the data score for industry and production statistics is 7.5 out of 10.
Management and Regulations INPESCA’s website has a section on fisheries and aquaculture regulations, but only the basic Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (489) were available. Law 489 includes minimal content on practical aquaculture legislation. It was not possible to find any regional or industry management measures or information on enforcement. Nicaragua’s Manual of Best Practices for Aquaculture (BAP) produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry (Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal; MAGFOR, 2008) is available online,6 which includes useful information on a variety or practical shrimp farming practices, but while the manual appears to reflect the contry’s regulatory requirements, how the manual’s recommendations are enacted or enforced is not specifically known. Information requests to INPESCA and to producers were not successful. A data score of 2.5 out of 10 is therefore given for this data category.
Effluent Data on effluent monitoring from Nicaraguan shrimp farms is very limited. The Nicaraguan institute for environmental capacity, research, and development (Instituto de Capacitación, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental; CIDEA) and MARENA have been monitoring environmental impacts on the Estero Real since 1990 but does not publish reports online. Direct requests for information were not successful. Initiated in 2009, INPESCA and the FAO organized a series of six workshops (the last was in 2013) to develop an ecosystem approach for fisheries and aquaculture in the Estero Real (Enfoque Ecosistémico a la Pesca y la Acuicultura en el Estero Real; EEPA), but it has not been possible to find direct evidence of implementation measures resulting from this work (e.g., FAO 2014). Nicaragua’s BAP Manual has content relating to waste water management, monitoring and effluent limits, but the legal relevance of this document and its enforcement are uncertain. This assessment relied mostly on data published in an audit of two ASC‐certified farms (ASC 2018) within the risk assessment option. For those reasons, a low data score of 2.5 out of 10 was given to the Criterion 2 – Effluent.
Habitat The mangrove habitats of Estero Real have gained some attention with regard to shrimp farming; a small number of specific studies have been based on satellite images of land conversion (e.g., Benessaiah 2008). Images within these studies or articles (e.g., Nat Geo 2007)
5 http://www.inpesca.gob.ni/ 6 http://www.bvsde.org.ni/ 15 provide a timeframe of habitat conversion which has the potential to be extended to the present day, using Google Earth. Information on the importance of the area to resident and migratory birds is available from Birdlife International, and from bird population studies such as Morales et al. (2014). Although a controversial topic, sufficient information is available to have some confidence in the land conversion of shrimp farms in the region, but the timeframes and overall ecological impacts continue to have some uncertainty. The data score is 5 out of 10.
Chemical Use Detailed information on chemical use in Nicaraguan shrimp farms was not available in either the public domain or the scientific literature. A basic list of chemicals and their approximate use was available from an INPESCA/FAO workshop report from 2010), and a European Commission audit report of farms and feed mills provides background information on chemical use regulation and oversight (DG‐SANCO 2014). The only specific data points available were from the ASC audit reports of two farms. Other circumstantial data was limited, and the data score for chemical use is 2.5 out of 10.
Feed The main shrimp feed producers in Nicaragua are Purina‐Cargill, Nicovita‐Vitapro, and Diamasa‐ Skretting, but detailed data on typical feed compositions were not available and direct requests for information were not successful. Nevertheless, the ASC audit report (ASC 2018) had useful information for the feeds of these three companies and enabled the calculations to be completed with moderate confidence—on the assumption that the feeds listed were representative of each company’s typical feeds in the region. The data score for feed is 5 out of 10.
Escapes No specific data on escapes were available, and the escape risk was based on tentative values for water exchange obtained from ASC (2018), and on well‐documented events such as Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Regarding invasiveness, useful studies are available indicating the genetic variability of both domesticated shrimp, and the wild populations with which they may interact (e.g., Vela‐Avitúa et al. 2013) (Perez‐Enriquez et al. 2018). With considerable ongoing uncertainty, the data score for escapes is 5 out of 10.
Disease There is a substantial amount of information on diseases affecting shrimp farms globally, but little specific data are available from Nicaragua. FAO (010) provides a list of reported diseases and their importance, but more recent information on these and other emerging diseases was not available. Some non‐specific references are available to demonstrate the theoretical risk of pathogen transfer from farmed to wild shrimp, mostly in Mexico; for example, (Lightner 2011) (Aguirre‐Guzmán et al. 2010) (Sauceda and Martínez 2016) (Mendoza‐Cano and Enríquez‐ Espinoza 2016). The data score for disease is 5 out of 10.
16 Source of Stock
INPESCA and FAO have data on the use of wild and hatchery produced postlarvae from 2009– 10, but it is considered highly likely that the situation has changed since then. Soto et al. (2013) reported that wild shrimp postlarvae continue to be utilized at that time, but the types of production system using them (e.g., artisanal or semi‐intensive) were not specified. Information requests to INPESCA and to producers were not successful. The MAGFOR (2008) has recommendations on the use of hatchery‐raised postlarvae, but their enactment or enforcement is uncertain. The data score is 2.5 out of 10.
Wildlife and Predator Mortalities No specific data on predator occurrence and mortalities in Nicaragua were found. This assessment relied on anecdotal information such as a list of relevant species in the region from the ASC audit reports, and recommendations in Nicaragua’s MAGFOR (2008). The data score is 2.5 out of 10.
Escape of Secondary species No specific data on international or trans‐waterbody movements of live shrimp could be found, but the assumed high rate of use of domesticated broodstocks implies importations may be limited to small numbers from specialist, biosecure operations. The data score is 2.5 out of 10.
Conclusions and Final Score Data on Nicaragua shrimp farms were generally scarce, and typically of questionable temporal validity. Requests to INPESCA and MARENA, and to producers and feed mills were all unsuccessful. Academic research in the region is also limited and often dated. Data from the producers are also scarce with the exception of one useful ASC audit report. Overall, the final score for Criterion 1 ‐ Data was 3.9 out of 10.
Criterion 2: Effluents
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: aquaculture species, production systems and management methods vary in the amount of waste produced and discharged per unit of production. The combined discharge of farms, groups of farms or industries contributes to local and regional nutrient loads. . Sustainability unit: the carrying or assimilative capacity of the local and regional receiving waters beyond the farm or its allowable zone of effect. . Principle: not allowing effluent discharges to exceed, or contribute to exceeding, the carrying capacity of receiving waters at the local or regional level.
Criterion 2 Summary
Effluent parameters Value Score F2.1a Waste (nitrogen) production per of fish (kg N ton‐1) 67.5 F2.1b Waste discharged from farm (%) 31.0 F2 .1 Waste discharge score (0–10) 7
17 F2.2a Content of regulations (0–5) 2 F2.2b Enforcement of regulations (0–5) 1 F2.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score (0–10) 0.8 C2 Effluent Final Score (0‐10) 4.0 Critical? NO YELLOW
Brief Summary There is very little information with which to assess the effluent impacts of Nicaraguan shrimp farms directly, particularly cumulative impacts from all the farms in the Estero Real, but information from local communities/authorities and government reports show some concerns. The available specific data on nutrient inputs (primarily from an ASC audit report of two farms) indicates that although both feed and nitrogen fertilizer are used, water exchange is relatively low, and it appears likely that at least the large farms have relatively low nitrogen discharges per ton of production (20.9 kg N per MT of shrimp). There are legal requirements in place relating to farm effluent concentration limits, but little accessible information on the management and regulatory systems in place to address total discharges from any one farm or the potential cumulative impacts from multiple farms. Given the limited information, the Risk‐ Assessment was used and the final score for Criterion 2 – Effluent is 4 out of 10.
Justification of Rating The amount of waste discharged from shrimp farms can be highly variable and dependent on various farm practices including feeding rates, water exchange, use of settling ponds or other treatment at exchange or harvest, and sludge disposal. Similarly, the impacts of those waste discharges can be highly variable depending on the characteristics of the receiving waterbody. According to ASC (2018), the Nicaraguan government has established an effluent monitoring program as part of the National Environmental Plan, but no detail or data could be obtained either online or from contacts with the Nicaraguan Institute of Fisheries and Aquaculture (INPESCA) and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA). In a community study, pollution from the effluents of shrimp ponds was identified as harmful for aquatic species in the Estero Real, and industrial shrimp farms were often blamed by local populations (Benessaiah and Sengupta 2014b). Initiated in 2009, INPESCA and the FAO organized a series of six workshops (the last was in 2013) to develop an ecosystem approach for fisheries and aquaculture in the Estero Real (Enfoque Ecosistémico a la Pesca y la Acuicultura en el Estero Real; EEPA), but it has not been possible to find direct evidence of implementation measures resulting from this work (e.g., FAO 2014). For example, the third workshop in 2010 concluded that the Estero Real region can greatly and immediately benefit from even a rough estimate of the Estuary’s carrying capacity and a program of improved monitoring (INPESCA 2010) (FAO 2012), but it is not known if this has been conducted and the results subsequently acted upon. An example overview of a shrimp farm discharge point can be seen in Figure 9 in Criterion 3 – Habitat.
Although relative effluent limits are specified in Nicaragua’s manual of best aquaculture practices (BAP, as discussed in Factor 2.2a below), no specific monitoring data or references to
18 the effluent impacts of pollution from shrimp farms in the Estero Real were apparent in scientific literature or in the public domain. Therefore, since the effluent data quality and availability is moderate/low (i.e., Criterion 1 – Data score of 2.5), the Seafood Watch Risk‐Based assessment was used.
Risk‐based Assessment: This method involves assessing the amount of waste produced by the fish and then the amount of that waste that is discharged from the farm. The effectiveness of the regulatory system in managing wastes from multiple farms is used to assess the potential cumulative impacts from the industry as a whole.
Factor 2.1 Waste discharged per ton of shrimp production
Factor 2.1a – Biological waste production per ton of shrimp Nitrogen inputs to shrimp farming are primarily in the form of feed and fertilizer. INPESCA (2009) reported (at that time) that all the semi‐intensive farms are reported to be using fertilizer, but it is not known if this is still the case, nor is the type or quantity of fertilizer known. Similarly, no relevant industry‐wide feed data could be obtained. Therefore, while accepting that the data may not accurately reflect other farms in Nicaragua and given the absence of other data, this assessment relies on the information in the recent audit report of two farms in Nicaragua certified to the ASC shrimp standard (ASC 2018).
With regard to fertilizer, the audit report shows the fertilizer “Fertiplus” is used (containing sodium nitrate, potassium, and potassium nitrate). In a two‐year period (2015 to 2017), 946.9 MT of fertilizer containing 56.1 MT of nitrogen were used to produce 3,233.6 MT of shrimp; i.e., 17.4 kg N per MT of shrimp production.
With regard to feed, the average protein content was 31.5%, and the economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR) was 1.567 (ASC 2018). In total, the combined fertilizer and feed8 give an estimated total nitrogen input of 96.0 kg N per MT of shrimp production. Given a nitrogen content of harvested shrimp of 17.8% (Boyd et al. 2007), the nitrogen in harvested shrimp is 28.5 kg N per MT.
Overall, there is a net waste nitrogen production of 67.5 kg N per MT of shrimp. Factor 2.1b below estimates how much of this waste is discharged from the farm.
Factor 2.1b – Production system discharge As noted in the introduction, the FAO report that water exchange rates were reduced to close to zero in the early 2000s, and at a similar time, traditional semi‐intensive shrimp ponds in Nicaragua were reported to be managed with zero water exchange through the dry season to
7 Note there is a considerable discrepancy in the FCR data in the ASC (2018) audit report. This is discussed in Criterion 5 – Feed. 8 Using a protein to nitrogen conversion factor of 0.16 19 avoid introduction of disease (Cummings 2001). However, no data on water exchanges representative of current practices in the country as a whole could be found.
Nicaragua’s BAP manual (MAGFOR 2008) states:
The percentage of water exchange should be kept to a minimum, so that it does not affect the environment and reduce stress in shrimp. Reduce water exchange by retaining water in ponds for a longer time so there is a greater opportunity for nitrogen and phosphorus to be extracted by natural processes. When draining the ponds, try to minimize the speed of the water outgoing to prevent sediment from being resuspended from the bottom of the ponds.
The recent ASC audit report (ASC 2018) reports an average 4% daily water exchange, and though potentially higher than the national average based on the references to the early 2000s, this value is used on a precautionary basis.
With further regard to sediment and sludge, Nicaragua’s BAP manual (MAGFOR 2008) states: “In the construction of new shrimp farms, provision should be made for implementation of a sedimentation pond to collect the sludge in drainage water and particularly at harvest. Such settling ponds should represent approximately one third the area of the total production ponds.” In addition to only apparently relating to “new” farms, it is not known how these best practices are enacted or enforced, and therefore how many farms operate sedimentation ponds.
The ASC audit report for the two certified farms notes there is no sludge discharge beyond the farm, and sediments from the ponds are used to reinforce the pond embankments (ASC 2018). Though it may be reasonable to assume that sludge dredged from the ponds is also retained as typical practice in Nicaragua,9 the 2008 recommendation on the use of settling ponds relates to new farms only, and therefore the uptake is uncertain. An adjustment is therefore made for retention of dredged sludge, but not for the use of settling ponds during water exchange or harvest.
Overall, with consideration of the daily water exchange rate (4%) and the apparent retention of dredged sludge, 31% of the wastes produced by the shrimp, or 20.9 kg N MT‐1 shrimp are considered to be discharged from the farm (see the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard for further information on these calculations). This corresponds to a Factor 2.1 score of 7 out of 10.
9 Inspection of satellite photos of the Estero Real shows many farms have long canals linking the production ponds to the natural waterways of the Estero (for example see Figure 9 in Criterion 3 – Habitat). It appears unlikely that sludge would either be dumped into these canals for discharge, or that it would be transported similar distances to be dumped into natural waterways. 20 Factor 2.2 Management of farm‐level and cumulative impacts
Factor 2.2a: Content of effluent management measures Aquaculture farms have to comply with the overarching Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Decreto 9‐2005), as well as the “Dispositions for the control of contamination from discharge of domestic, industrial and agricultural residual water” (Decreto 33/95), and the law on the environment “Ley General del Ambiente” (Decreto 217). Some of these regulations are available (in Spanish) from INPESCA, but details of their practical implementation are not readily accessible, and the typical effluent management practices on shrimp farms in Nicaragua are unclear.
Nicaragua’s BAP manual (MAGFOR 2008) lists water quality requirements, which are the same MARENA’s regulatory requirements. They are listed in Table 1 below and include an initial value at the time of certification to the BAP and a final value that must be met after five years. As stated previously, although the BAP manual includes the Nicaraguan regulatory requirements, there is clearly other content that is advisory in nature (e.g., “the percentage of water exchange should be kept to a minimum”) and it is not known how the content is enacted or enforced at shrimp farms.
Table 1: Water quality requirements from the BAP Manual (MAGFOR 2008). Parameter Units Initial Value Final Value Monitoring pH mg/l 6.0 ‐ 9.0 6.0 – 9.0 Monthly Suspended solids mg/l <100 <50 3 months Soluble Phosphorous mg/l <0.5 <0.3 Monthly Ammonia Nitrogen mg/l <5 <3 Monthly Biological Oxygen Demand mg/l <100 <50 3 months Dissolved oxygen ppt >4 >5 Monthly
Though these values are considered to be specific effluent limits, they are relative; that is, the limits are for “per liter” concentrations, and therefore are not related in any way to the total effluent volumes. As such, these limits do not give any indication of a farm’s total nutrient discharge (i.e., concentration per liter multiplied by the total volume discharged), or of the cumulative load of multiple farms discharging into the same waterbody. It is also not known if the water quality monitoring must be conducted during peak discharges such as harvest. The score for Factor 2.2a is therefore 2 out of 5.
Factor 2.2b: Enforcement of effluent management measures The implementation of the laws noted above is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) and the Instituto Nicaragüense de Acueductos y Alcantarillado Sanitario (roughly translated as The Nicaraguan Institute of Aqueducts and Sanitary Sewers; INAA), in collaboration with the municipalities, but no specific data on the enforcement of effluent management measures could be found. A request for monitoring reports was made to the relevant authorities, but there was no response. A long‐term water quality assessment by the Nicaraguan institute for environmental capacity, research, and development (Instituto de Capacitación, Investigación y Desarrollo Ambiental; CIDEA) of the Estero Real found no conclusive evidence that shrimp farms were degrading the estuary (FAO
21 2012); however, it had previously been reported that the Estero Real in its upper and medium parts receives organic and inorganic matter from the aquaculture farms wastewater, which could have a negative impact on the surrounding biodiversity (UCA‐MARENA 2001). Moreover, the CIDEA results were judged unreliable by the municipalities of Puerto Morazán y Somotillo and pollution from the effluents of shrimp ponds were identified as harmful for aquatic species (Benessaiah and Sengupta 2014b).
Due to the minimal evidence of monitoring or compliance data, the score for Factor 2.2b is 1 of 5. When combined with the Factor 2.2a score of 2 out of 5, the final Factor 2.2 score is 0.8 out of 10, reflecting the very limited understanding of the aquaculture regulatory and management system in Nicaragua.
Conclusions and Final score There is very little information with which to assess effluent impacts in Nicaragua from shrimp farms resulting from feed and fertilizer inputs when water is exchanged, and particularly the cumulative impacts of all the farms in the Estero Real. Contradicting information from local communities/authorities and government reports show there are some concerns regarding potential effluent impacts. The limited data indicate that shrimp farms have relatively low nitrogen discharges per ton of production (20.9 kg N per MT of shrimp), but there is very little information on the management and regulatory system in place to address potential cumulative impacts. Overall, Factors 2.1 and 2.2 combine to result in a final score of 4 out of 10 for Criterion 2 – Effluent.
Criterion 3: Habitat
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Aquaculture farms can be located in a wide variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat types and have greatly varying levels of impact to both pristine and previously modified habitats and to the critical “ecosystem services” they provide. . Sustainability unit: The ability to maintain the critical ecosystem services relevant to the habitat type. . Principle: being located at sites, scales and intensities that maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats.
Criterion 3 Summary Habitat parameters Value Score F3.1 Habitat conversion and function 0 F3.2a Content of habitat regulations 2 F3.2b Enforcement of habitat regulations 1 F3.2 Regulatory or management effectiveness score 0.8 C3 Habitat Final Score (0‐10) 0.27
22 Critical? YES RED
Brief Summary The vast majority of Nicaragua’s shrimp farms are located in the Estero Real, an ecologically important area that includes the country’s largest extension of mangrove forests. The majority of shrimp farms were built on hypersaline mud and sand flats within broader mangrove areas, with little direct loss of mangrove trees, but these sand and mud flats represent part of the broader ecosystem, and the seasonal dry forest has been considered to be the most endangered terrestrial ecosystem in the tropics. The Estero Real is a shorebird reserve of hemispheric importance for resident and migratory birds, and the areas of greatest concentration of birds are under the direct influence of thousands of hectares of shrimp farming. The farm activities directly influence the feeding habitat and refuge of shorebirds. Overall, the wetlands (i.e., including the salt flat areas) in the Estero Real region have been greatly reduced, especially towards the mouth of the river where they have been converted into shrimp ponds; although the majority of pond construction occurred prior to 1999, there has been substantial construction since the area became protected (in 1983) and designated as a Ramsar site (in 2001).
These habitat conversions represent an extensive change to the estuarine ecosystem, and the ecological effects of changes to the hydrology of the broader habitats due to pond construction continue to be uncertain. The regulatory systems in Nicaragua for managing high‐value habitats are complex and unclear. There is evidence of permitting processes in place in some (independently certified) farms, but there is little readily available content on habitat connectivity, cumulative impacts, or on enforcement. Satellite images show recent construction of ponds in salt flats and dry forests in the last 5 years. Overall, the final score for Criterion 3 – Habitat is 0.27 out of 10, reflecting the critical concerns that remain regarding the habitat impacts of shrimp farms in Nicaragua.
Justification of Rating
Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function As noted previously, nearly all of Nicaragua’s shrimp farms are located in the north‐west of the country along the Estero Real (Rivas 2013). The Estero Real is part of the Gulf of Fonseca, an extremely fertile 70,000 ha of interdependent patches of mangroves, salt flats, marshes, and lagoons shared by Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua (Ramsar 2000). The Estero Real in Nicaragua comprises the country’s largest extension of mangrove forests, encompassing 23,000 ha in which Rhizophora spp. and Avicennia spp. are the predominant trees (Carvalho et al. 1999). On a broader scale, Sasa et al. (2015) notes the Estero Real is one of the four of the largest and most important wetlands along the Central American Pacific coast (alongside Bahía de Jiquilisco in El Salvador, the Región Occidental de Nicaragua in western Nicaragua, and in the Lower Basin of the Tempisque River in northwestern Costa Rica).
23 This region is characterized by a warm climate and a highly seasonal rainfall regime that allows the development of seasonal dry forest, perhaps the most endangered terrestrial ecosystem in the Tropics (Janzen 1988). In addition, two main seasons (wet and dry) regulate seasonal lagoons that expand as sea waters meet with surface water from the highlands (see Figure 6); these lagoons are important, biodiverse habitats, hosting aquatic larvae during part of their reproductive cycle, and providing refuge to migratory birds (Núñez‐Ferrera 2003) (Vásquez et al. 2005). This ecological importance of the region is reflected in the recognition of the Estero Real as a protected area as early as 1983, and as a Ramsar site in 2001 (Benessaiah and Sengupta 2014a).
Figure 6: Map of Estero Real showing the extent of seasonal lagoons in the wet and dry season and the extent of shrimp ponds in 2006. Image copied from Bennesaiah and Sengupta (2008).
Along the Pacific coast of Central America, more than 70% of the original area covered by seasonal wetlands has been transformed into lands for agriculture, aquaculture production, or urban development (Sasa et al. 2015). Shrimp farming grew rapidly through the 1990s in Nicaragua. Figure 7 shows no farms were present in the Estero Real in 1987, although they were very apparent in 1999. According to (FAO 2007), mangrove forest loss in Nicaragua was up to 2.3% per year from the 1980 to 2000 period, and shrimp farming was at times heavily criticized for “mangrove destruction” (e.g., Nat Geo 2007). However, according to a study based on satellite images from 1987 and 2006, mangroves (including both primary mangroves and secondary succession from previous clearance) constituted only a minor part of the land converted to shrimp farms in the Estero Real with a total conversion of 13 ha/year (Benessiah 2008). In contrast, the same study showed salt and mud flats on slightly higher ground behind the mangroves represented 75% of the lands converted to shrimp ponds in the same period. 24 Figure 7: Satellite images of Estero Real in 1987 and 1999 showing the development of shrimp farms. Image copied from Nat Geo (2007).
According to Soares et al. (2017), because mangroves occur in intertidal zones, soil salinity is a key environmental factor controlling the structure, function, and distribution of this ecosystem. In arid or seasonally dry regions that are subjected to occasional tidal flooding (such as western Nicaragua where evapotranspiration is higher than precipitation), hypersaline conditions occur; therefore, beyond the mangrove channels the vegetation becomes drier with Avicennia forest becoming stunted on higher ground until it disappears and is replaced by extensive salt flats with no vegetation (CATIE/IUCN 1990).
25 Figure 8 Satellite image of Estero Real in 2018 showing the same area as Figure 7 above. Shrimp farms are highlighted with red approximate outlines. Base image copied from Google Earth.
Figure 8 shows an image from 2018 covering the same area as Figure 7; outlined in red, it shows the current pond boundaries and the further extension of farms from 1999 to the present day. Both figures show that the large majority of farms have been built on the saline sand and mud flats. Figure 9 shows more data from Benessaiah (2008) with a breakdown of the different types of land conversion. Sand flats were favoured by shrimp farmers due to reduced costs (in terms of labour and finances) associated with the construction phase and also provide optimal soil chemical conditions for shrimp productivity as opposed to mangrove soil that are too acidic (Moreno 2001).
26 Figure 9: Contribution of each land cover type to shrimp aquaculture (%), in the Estero Real, Gulf of Fonseca, Nicaragua (1987 to 2006) (Benessaiah 2008).
Benessiah and Sangupta (2014) reported that establishing shrimp ponds on salt flats raised little community resistance given that these were considered barren areas of little interest beyond the occasional firewood and shellfish collection; however, it is important to note that these areas are considered part of the wetland ecosystem, and as noted above, the seasonal dry forest has been considered to be the most endangered terrestrial ecosystem in the tropics (Janzen 1988). Sasa et al. (2015) note the wetlands (i.e., including the salt flat areas) in the Estero Real region have been greatly reduced, especially towards the mouth of the river where they have been converted into shrimp ponds.
In addition to the Ramsar designation, the Estero Real qualifies as a Shorebird Reserve of hemispheric importance to resident and migratory birds according to the criteria of the Hemispheric Network of Shorebird Reserves (Morales et al. 2014). These authors report that the areas of greatest concentration of birds are under the direct influence of thousands of hectares of shrimp farming activities; for example, they state that at least 20,000 ha of bird areas are dedicated to shrimp farming, which directly influence the feeding habitat and refuge of shorebirds. The construction of ponds has reduced the refuge areas at high tide with the result that the pond dykes are now becoming the resting areas used by birds waiting for lower tides; however, there are greater levels of disturbance in these locations due to farm activities.
27 Nicaragua’s manual of best aquaculture practices (MAGFOR 2008) states: “shrimp facilities will not damage or alter the conditions of coastal wetlands, mangrove forests or areas of aquatic vegetation or other ecological systems near the sites of production. There must be no net conversion of critical coastal ecosystems. The mangrove ecosystems and wetlands will not be used for development of new production areas of the shrimp industry, only the salt pans free of vegetation.” Despite the accepted primary use of salt and mud flats (i.e., salt pans) for the construction of ponds and the relatively minor direct loss of mangrove stands (Figure 9), the above information indicates that the salt flats and dry forest habitats are an integral part of the broader mangrove ecosystem in the area. Further, Sasa et al. (2015) note that even though their assessment indicates the very good quality of the Estero Real according to the ECELS10 index of wetland disturbance, the reduction of wetlands in the Estero Real represents not only a significant loss of biological diversity, but also a noticeable decrease of the flow of materials and biomass from the aquatic to the surrounding dry forest.
In addition to any direct loss of mangrove habitat, the wider coastal dynamics must also be considered, since shrimp ponds also indirectly impact mangroves through changes in hydrology, increased sedimentation, and water contamination (Martinez‐Alier 2001) (Valiela et al. 2001) (Lugo 2002) (Walters et al. 2008). Morales et al. (2014) note that the interruption of water flows in the mangroves and broader area has as‐yet uncertain effects on the long‐term functioning of the Estero Real, and Sasa et al. (2014) also report a general lack of knowledge on the limnological characteristics and seasonal dynamics of these systems.
Recent Habitat Conversion Figures 7 an 8 show there has been a substantial increase in pond area in the region between 1999 and 2018, particularly to the north of the main river. Figure 3 in the introduction showed the total pond area had remained largely stable at approximately 11,000 ha from 2006 to 2013, with an increase to 14,742 ha in 2014. As noted previously, it is not known if this is a genuine increase in pond area or a result of updated reporting categories, but further examination of historic images in Google Earth show that there has indeed been recent conversion of salt flats and dry forests. Figure 10 (from 2010) and Figure 11 (from 2018) show an area of Estero Real where new ponds have been constructed in salt flat areas between 2012 to 2015 (these dates are accurate plus or minus one year due to the available historic images in Google Earth). An example of recent dry forest conversion (between 2014 and 2016) is also shown in Appendix 1.
10 ECELS is the Index of Conservation Status of Shallow Lentic Ecosystems (ECELS), and gives an indication of the alteration of wetland habitats. See Sasa et al. (2014). 28 Figure 10: Satellite image of a part of Estero Real taken in 2010. The dates refer to the subsequent construction of ponds as shown by comparison to Figure 11 taken in 2018. Base image copied from Google Earth.
Figure 11: Satellite image of the same part of Estero Real as Figure 10 taken in 2018. New ponds can be seen by comparing to Figure 10 with the dates of construction also shown in Figure 10. Base image copied from Google Earth.
29 Given the Ramsar designation (2001) and the protected status of the Estero Real region since 1983, the legal status of these recent conversions is not known. As described in Factor 3.2 below, there is little readily available information with which to comprehend the exact content of the Nicaraguan regulations with regard to mangrove conversion, but as such, there is no evidence here to robustly conclude that the recent pond constructions were illegal.
Overall, Sasa et al. (2014) conclude wetlands in this region have been greatly reduced, especially towards the mouth of the river, due to the construction of shrimp ponds. Even though the damages that have been caused to the mangroves in Nicaragua are much smaller compared to the damage to mangroves in other countries (FAO 2010), the Nicaraguan government’s Sistema Nacional de Información Ambiental (SINIA)11 state that the construction of ponds has contributed to the impoverishment, alteration, and contamination of life in the mangrove swamp, representing an extensive change to the estuarine ecosystem. There are also changes to the hydrology of the broader habitats due to pond construction, the ecological effects of which continue to be uncertain. There has been substantial development of shrimp ponds since the designation of the Estero Real as a Ramsar site in 2001, and there is evidence of recent (less than 5 years) conversion of salt flats and dry forests to new ponds. This ongoing loss of habitat functionality in these high value habitats results in a final score for Factor 3.1 of 0 out of 10.
Factor 3.2. Farm siting regulation and management
Factor 3.2a: Content of habitat management measures
Nicaragua initiated its Law of Fishing and Aquaculture (Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura, Ley No. 489) in 2004. The law’s text (in Spanish) is available from INPESCA12 (although a more effective portal is the FAOLEX database),13 and INPESCA is the competent authority for its application. The legal document for Law 489 is difficult to interpret and is further complicated by its implementing regulation (Decree No. 9/05 of 2005). In addition, Nicaragua has Law No. 690 on the Development of Coastal Zones (Ley para el desarrollo de las zonas costeras) from 2009, but this was amended in 2015 (Ley No. 913) and implemented by Decreto No. 78/09. Due to the complexity of these documents and their translation, it is not possible to robustly interpret the habitat management measure in place for the Estero Real. As noted above, Nicaragua’s manual of best aquaculture practices (MAGFOR 2008) intends to restrict ongoing pond construction to areas without vegetation, but the legal status of the manual is unclear.
One practical example of the site permitting process within the Estero Real is provided by the ASC‐certified sites constructed in 2006, which received a “Concession Ministry Agreement Certificate” from the Concessions Administration of the Direction of Natural Resources of the
11http://www.sinia.net.ni/multisites/NodoSINAP/index.php/sinap/areasprotegidas?layout=edit&id=17
12 http://www.inpesca.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36&Itemid=113 13 http://www.fao.org/faolex/country‐profiles/general‐profile/en/?iso3=NIC 30 Promotion, Industry, and Commerce Ministry. They also received an Environmental Permit according to the Environmental Impact Assessment under the Administrative Resolution No. 02‐2007 from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA) (ASC 2018). It is interesting to note that, due to their siting in a protected area, these now‐certified farms required a variance request for compliance to the habitat requirements of the ASC Standard for shrimp.14
Although the region has been studied through several FAO/INPESCA workshops, which highlighted the need for carrying capacity studies (see Criterion 2 – Effluent), no evidence of ecosystem‐based management could be found regarding cumulative habitat impacts in the region. The ASC‐certified example provides some evidence that a permitting or licensing system is in place, but due to the difficulty in identifying the precise Nicaraguan management systems that relate to habitat conversion and conservation for all farms, plus the uncertain status of the best practices manual and lack of obvious content on habitat connectivity and cumulative impacts, the score for Factor 3.2a is 2 out of 5.
Factor 3.2b: Enforcement of habitat management measures Information on compliance to environmental standards is not available on governmental websites (MARENA, INPESCA, MIFIC), and direct requests to those departments for further information have received no response at the time of writing. The National system of environmental information (SINIA) may provide some information on enforcement activities, but the website is unreliable and typically not available. The example of the ASC‐certified sites shows that where documentation is available (i.e., at an audit), there is evidence of enforcement in the form of certificates and permits, but it is not known if this is the case for all farms. With little readily available evidence of monitoring or compliance data, and no evidence of penalties or infringements, there is very little information with which to assess the effectiveness of the enforcement of regulations. The score for Factor 3.2b is therefore 1 out of 5.
When combined with the Factor 3.2a score of 2 out of 5, the final Factor 3.2 score for farm siting and regulation is 0.8 out of 10, primarily reflecting the lack of readily available information and data with which to assess the content and effectiveness of the habitat management systems in the Estero Real.
Conclusions and Final Score The vast majority of Nicaragua’s shrimp farms are located in the Estero Real, an ecologically important area that includes the country’s largest extension of mangrove forests. The majority of shrimp farms were built on hypersaline mud and sand flats within broader mangrove areas, with little direct loss of mangrove trees, but these sand and mud flats represent part of the broader ecosystem, and the seasonal dry forest has been considered to be the most endangered terrestrial ecosystem in the tropics. The Estero Real is a shorebird reserve of hemispheric importance for resident and migratory birds, and the areas of greatest
14 https://www.asc-aqua.org/what-we-do/our-standards/ 31 concentration of birds are under the direct influence of thousands of hectares of shrimp farming. The farm activities directly influence the feeding habitat and refuge of shorebirds. Overall, the wetlands (i.e., including the salt flat areas) in the Estero Real region have been greatly reduced, especially towards the mouth of the river where they have been converted into shrimp ponds, and though the majority of pond construction occurred prior to 1999, there has been substantial construction since the area was protected (in 1983) and designated as a Ramsar site (in 2001).
These habitat conversions represent an extensive change to the estuarine ecosystem, and the ecological effects of changes to the hydrology of the broader habitats due to pond construction continue to be uncertain. The regulatory systems in Nicaragua for managing high‐value habitats are complex and unclear. There is evidence of permitting processes in place in some (independently certified) farms, but there is little readily available content on habitat connectivity, cumulative impacts, or on enforcement. Satellite images show recent construction of ponds in salt flats and dry forests in the last 5 years. Overall, the final score for Criterion 3 – Habitat of 0.27 out of 10, reflecting the critical concerns that remain regarding the habitat impacts of shrimp farms in Nicaragua.
Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: Improper use of chemical treatments impacts non‐target organisms and leads to production losses and human health concerns due to the development of chemical‐resistant organisms. . Sustainability unit: non‐target organisms in the local or regional environment, presence of pathogens or parasites resistant to important treatments . Principle: limiting the type, frequency of use, total use, or discharge of chemicals to levels representing a low risk of impact to non‐target organisms.
Criterion 4 Summary Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score (0–10) 0 Critical? NO RED
Brief Summary There are no reliable data available on the current use of chemicals in Nicaraguan shrimp farms. Three antibiotics are currently authorized for use in aquaculture in Nicaragua, and there is now‐ dated evidence that one of them (oxytetracycline) was used by a small proportion of farms in the past (2010), and circumstantial evidence that a second (enrofloxacin) has been supplied in medicated feeds to shrimp farms in 2014. The only specific recent farm data from a total of four farms audited by the ASC and the European Commission show antibiotics (or other chemicals)
32 have not been used. Without any recent evidence on chemical use from all shrimp farms in Nicaragua, or data from feed mills and/or the relevant authorities, the use of both highly‐ and critically‐important antibiotics is largely unknown, and the final score for Criterion 4 – Chemical Use is 0 out of 10 on a precautionary basis.
Justification of Rating Since 2011, the “Reglamento Tecnico Centroamericano” (RTCA 65.05.51:08) has been applicable in Nicaragua and describes the legal provisions for the authorization/registration, distribution, and use of veterinary medicinal products (DG‐SANCO, 2014). Agreement 4 of RTCA lists 8 pharmacologically active substances for which the use in food‐producing animals is prohibited (dimetridazole, nitrofurans, sulphathiazole, vancomycin, strichnine chloramphenicol, stilbenes, and organochlorines). In Nicaragua, the Department for Registration and Control of Livestock Supplies within the Directorate of Animal Health (Dirección de Salud Animal – DISAAN) is the central competent authority for authorization of veterinary medicinal products, and it has registrations for three antibiotic products that can be used in farmed crustaceans: enrofloxacin, florfenicol and oxytetracycline (DG‐SANCO 2014).
Beyond this background information, no routine farm‐level data on the types, quantities, or frequency of the use of chemicals on shrimp farms in Nicaragua could be found. At the feed mill, records on purchase of premixes, applications of farms/companies for medicated feed, and monthly records on the production of medicated feed were present during DG‐SANCO’s audits, and monthly reports on the production of medicated feeds have to be sent from the feed mills to the Department for Registration and Control of Livestock Supplies within DISAAN (DG‐SANCO, 2014); unfortunately, these records do not appear to be publicly available, and attempts to contact DISAAN, INPESCA, feed mills, and shrimp producers for information were not successful. Nicaragua’s BAP Manual (MAGFOR 2008), in addition to other general advice, recommends: “The use of pharmacological agents, antibiotics and other chemical products must be considered as a last resort in farming operations of shrimp and in general, in aquaculture.”
A 2010 presentation during the third INPESCA/FAO workshop on Estero Real (INPESCA 2010) (FAO 2012) provides some basic dated information on chemical use (Figure 11); otherwise, the only specific data points available were from the two ASC‐certified farms for which the audit report shows no antibiotics were used.
33 Figure 12: Chemical use in Nicaraguan shrimp ponds in approximately 2010. “Carbonato de calcio” = calcium carbonate; “cloro” = chlorine; “hidroxido de calcio” = calcium hydroxide; “melasa” = molasses; “metabisulfito” = metabisulphite; “ninguno” = none; “oxitetraciclina” = oxytetracycline; “qumex 90” = calcium hydroxide; “sal amonio” = ammonium salts; “vitaminas” = vitamins. Graph copied from FAO (2010).
Figure 11 shows over a third of the farms (in approximately 2010) used no chemicals. The vast majority of chemicals that were used are for pond preparation, disinfection, and fertilization and are typically considered to be of low environmental concern. Antibiotics or pesticides are generally the focus of this criterion, and while Figure 11 does not show any pesticide use, it shows 6.58% of farms at that time used the antibiotic oxytetracycline. It must be emphasized that the data in Figure 11 cannot be assumed to represent current practices.
Circumstantially, shrimp farming globally has been vulnerable to a series of bacterial and viral disease outbreaks, causing serious economic challenges for the industry; in the case of bacterial pathogens such as the suite of Vibrio species affecting shrimp, antibiotics such as enrofloxacin, florfenicol and oxytetracycline may be used to counteract them (del Carmen Bermúdez‐Almada et al. 2014). Other circumstantial evidence that there is at least some antibiotic use in Nicaraguan shrimp farms is available from DG‐SANCO (2014) whose audits of feed mills showed there were periods in which medicated feeds containing oxytetracycline or enrofloxacin had been delivered to farms (unfortunately no further details were provided). In contrast, the DG‐ SANCO audits of two farms showed that no chemicals had been used. Under Agreement 2 of RTCA, the competent authority must establish a list of veterinary medicinal products, which require a veterinary prescription; however, according to DG‐SANCO (2014), this list is not yet
34 published in Nicaragua, and the dispensing of antibiotics does not need a veterinary prescription.
In consideration of any other available indication of chemical use in Nicaragua, a 2005 report (although now dated) by the World Bank reported there was no evidence to suggest Nicaragua was using illegal antibiotics in shrimp farms, and no information was found that indicated Nicaragua shrimp commerce (i.e., exports) had been hindered due to the use or detection of antibiotics (Cato et al. 2005); indeed, no farmed shrimp products from Nicaragua were included in any US FDA Import Alerts15 regarding antibiotics, nor were there any import refusals16 of Nicaraguan farmed shrimp products due to antibiotics, according to available data dating back to 2002.
Although Carmen Bermúdez‐Almada et al. (2014) acknowledged that (in their Mexican study) the current trend is to restrict or reduce the use of antibiotics in shrimp aquaculture due to the emergence of bacterial resistance, ecological problems, restriction of exports, and impacts on human health, there is no robust and/or recent information with which to conclude the lack of antibiotics used in the two Nicaraguan ASC‐certified farms is representative of the broader industry, or that the 2010 data available from the FAO is representative of current practices. Oxytetracycline is listed as “Highly important to human medicine” by the World Health Authority (WHO 2017), and enrofloxacin is listed as “Critically important.” Antibiotic use potentially varies substantially in response to emerging diseases, and therefore the lack of recent chemical use data means that the current use must be considered unknown.
Conclusions and Final Score Three antibiotics are currently authorized for use in aquaculture in Nicaragua. There is evidence that oxytetracycline has been used by a small proportion of farms in the past (2010), and there is circumstantial evidence that enrofloxacin has been supplied in medications to shrimp farms in 2014. The only specific recent farm data from a total of four farms in ASC and DG‐SANCO audits show antibiotics (or other chemicals) have not been used. Without any recent data on antibiotic use from all shrimp farms, from feed mills or from the relevant authorities in Nicaragua, the use of both highly‐ and critically‐important antibiotics is largely unknown, and the final score for Criterion 4 – Chemical Use is 0 out of 10 on a precautionary basis.
Criterion 5: Feed
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: feed consumption, feed type, ingredients used and the net nutritional gains or losses vary dramatically between farmed species and production systems. Producing feeds and their ingredients has complex global ecological impacts, and their efficiency of
15 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/country_NI.html 16 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ImportRefusals/index.cfm 35 conversion can result in net food gains, or dramatic net losses of nutrients. Feed use is considered to be one of the defining factors of aquaculture sustainability. . Sustainability unit: the amount and sustainability of wild fish caught for feeding to farmed fish, the global impacts of harvesting or cultivating feed ingredients, and the net nutritional gains or losses from the farming operation. . Principle: sourcing sustainable feed ingredients and converting them efficiently with net edible nutrition gains.
Criterion 5 Summary Feed parameters value score 5.1a – Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) 0.7 8.3 5.1b – Sustainability of the Source of Wild Fish –10 5.1 – Wild Fish Use 6.9 5.2a – Protein Input 42.1 5.2b – Protein Output 18.6 5.2 – Net Protein Gain or Loss –55.8 4 5.3 – Feed Footprint 7.0 7 C5 FEED Final Score 6.2 YELLOW Critical No
Brief Summary The majority of shrimp culture (semi‐intensive) in Nicaragua relies on artificial food in pellet form, in addition to natural food in the ponds stimulated by added fertilizer. Information requests to three feed companies were not met, but useful data on feeds from those companies were available in a 2018 ASC audit report; as such, they were considered to be a useful reflection on the country as a whole. Using a (precautionary) economic feed conversion ratio of 1.56 and an average inclusion of 14.5% fishmeal and 1.5% fish oil in the feeds, the Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) was 0.7 for fishmeal (the fish oil came from byproducts and was therefore not included in the calculation). This indicates that from first principles, 0.7 tons of wild fish are required to produce one ton of farmed shrimp. The source fisheries for fishmeal were not known, and the adjusted Wild Fish Use score is 6.9 out of 10. A net edible protein loss of 55.8 % was calculated based on an assumption that all non‐marine feed ingredients were edible crops. A combined ocean and land area of 7.0 ha is required to supply the amount of feed ingredients necessary to produce one ton of farmed shrimp. Overall, the final score for Criterion 5 – Feed is 6.2 out of 10.
Justification of Rating In Nicaragua, shrimp are mostly farmed under semi‐intensive conditions that depend largely on commercial pelleted feed in addition to natural productivity in the ponds stimulated by added fertilizer.
Information requests were made to three feed companies operating or marketing in Nicaragua (Purina‐Cargill, Nicovita‐Vitapro, and Diamasa‐Skretting), but no responses were received at the
36 time of writing; however, some composition data from each of these company’s feeds are available in the ASC audit report for the two certified farms (ASC 2018). These data are from production cycles between 2015 and 2017, and although some values are unclear, they are used in the feed calculations below in the absence of more‐representative alternatives.
The Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard assesses three feed‐related factors: wild fish use (including the sustainability of the source), net protein gain or loss, and the feed “footprint” or global area required to supply the ingredients.
Factor 5.1. Wild fish use
Factor 5.1a – Feed fish efficiency ratio (FFER)
Concentrating on the larger sized feeds (i.e,. those used for the bulk of the weight gain of the shrimp)17 the three feeds have an overall range of inclusion levels as follows (ASC 2018):
Inclusion level of fishmeal from whole fish = 5 to 15 % Inclusion level of fishmeal from byproducts = 2 to 7 % Inclusion level of fish oil from whole fish = 0% in all feeds Inclusion level of fish oil from byproducts = 1 to 2 %
After evaluating all the (larger) sizes of feed from the three feed companies, it is considered that the mean values of each of these ranges are the best representation of the feeds used in Nicaragua (i.e., mean fishmeal from whole fish is 10%, and mean fishmeal from byproducts is 4.5%, giving a total fishmeal inclusion of 14.5% of which 31% is from byproducts).
Regarding the economic feed conversion ratio (eFCR), the value in the ASC audit report is unclear, and the extrapolation of that value to the rest of the Nicaraguan shrimp farms is also risky. The audit report states the eFCR is 1.16, but also states a weighted average eFCR for the complete production cycles of 1.56. In contrast, calculations done for this assessment based on the figures provided in the audit report for total feed inputs and total biomass outputs give an eFCR of 0.38. The value of 1.16 was also stated for the same farms in a previous audit report (ASC, 2015). Although now dated, INPESCA reported an average FCR for semi‐intensive systems in Nicaragua of 1.11 (INPESCA 2009). Considering the range of values and the lack of available data from the broader industry, the highest value of 1.56 is used here on a precautionary basis, though it is considered to be somewhat high (for example in a general feed report, Tacon et al. [2011] reported the eFCR of white shrimp to be 1.4). No information was available on the fish meal and fish oil yield, and the default values in the Seafood Watch Standard from Tacon and Metian (2008) of 22.5% and 5%, respectively, were used.
These values and resulting FFER values are shown below.
17 For example, Nicovita has six sizes: 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.2, 2.0 and 2.5mm, and the latter three have been used. 37 Table 2: FFER data points and calculated values Parameter Value Average fishmeal inclusion level 14.5 % Percentage of fishmeal from byproducts 31 % Fishmeal yield (from wild fish) 22.5 % Average fish oil inclusion level 1.5 % Percentage of fish oil from byproducts 100 % Fish oil yield (from wild fish) 5 % Feed Conversion ratio (FCR) 1.56 Calculated values Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) (fishmeal) 0.69 Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio (FFER) (fish oil) 0.00 Seafood Watch FFER Score (0‐10) 8.27
The final FFER value is based on the larger of the two values, i.e., 0.69 for fish meal, which means that from first principles, it takes less than 1kg (0.69 kg) of wild fish to provide the fishmeal needed to grow 1 kg of whole shrimp. Based on these data, the score for Factor 5.1a – Feed Fish Efficiency Ratio is 8.27 out of 10.
Factor 5.1b – Sustainability of the source of wild fish No information could be obtained on the source fisheries used to produce the fishmeal and oil used in Nicaraguan shrimp feeds. As noted above, information requests to all three companies were not responded to, and no information is provided in the ASC audit reports. Therefore, the source fisheries are unknown, and the score for Factor 5.1b is –10 out of –10. This results in an adjustment of –1.39 to the Factor 5.1a score, giving a final Factor 5.1 score of 6.88 out of 10.
Factor 5.2. Net protein gain or loss Again, no specific country‐wide data values could be obtained for Nicaragua. Although now out of date, Tacon (2002) stated a minimum of 30% of protein content is required for the aquaculture of L. vannamei, and the ASC (2018) audit report states a range of 28 to 35%. It is considered that the larger growout feeds representing the bulk of feed use will have the lower values. An academic feed study by Toruño and Vanegas (2015) used a “commercial” feed with 25% total protein. Considering this range of values, an intermediate value of 30% is used.
With an assumed protein content of fishmeal of 66.5%, the 14.5% inclusion in the feed is calculated to represent 32.1% of the total protein in the feed (22.2% from fishmeal made from whole fish, and 9.9% from fishmeal made from inedible byproducts). Without further data, the remaining 67.9% of the total protein is considered to come from “edible” crop ingredients. With the eFCR of 1.56, there is an edible protein input of 42.1 kg protein per 100 kg of harvested shrimp.
38 Regarding protein outputs, the protein content of whole shrimp (L. vannamei) is 17.8% (Boyd et al. 2007), and FAO (2001) states the edible yield of shrimp is 45% (40% of whole shrimp is the head, and a further 15% in the shell, tail, and legs). Although shrimp processing wastes can be dried into a meal for further uses in animal feed (FAO 2001), it is not known if this is done in Nicaragua; therefore, the default of 50% utilization is used. After an adjustment for the conversion of crop protein to animal proteins, the edible protein output is 18.6 kg protein per 100kg shrimp.
Table 3: Protein data points and calculated values Parameter Value Protein content of feed 30 % Percentage of total protein from non‐edible sources (by‐products etc.) 10.0 % Percentage of protein from edible sources 90.0 % Percentage of protein from crop sources 67.9 % Feed Conversion Ratio 1.56 Protein INPUT per ton of farmed shrimp 421.4 kg Edible yield of harvested shrimp 45% Protein content of whole harvested shrimp 17.8 % Percentage of farmed shrimp by‐products utilized 50 % Utilized protein OUTPUT per ton of farmed shrimp 186.4 kg Net protein loss –55.8 % Seafood Watch score (0‐10) 4
Overall, there is a net edible protein loss of 55.8% which corresponds to a score of 4 out of 10 for Factor 5.2.
Factor 5.3. Feed footprint By considering the marine, terrestrial crop, and terrestrial land animal ingredients, this factor provides an estimate of the ocean and land area required to produce the ingredients necessary to produce feed required per ton of farmed shrimp. Based on the available data cited previously, the calculation was based on an inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients of 16.0%, an inclusion level of crop feed ingredients of 84%.
Table 4: Feed footprint data points and calculated values. Parameter Value Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients 16.0 % Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients 84.0 % Inclusion level of land animal ingredients 0.0 % Ocean area used per ton of farmed shrimp 6.5 ha Land area used per ton of farmed shrimp 0.5 ha Total area 7.0 ha Seafood Watch Score (0‐10) 7
39 Based on average productivity values for oceans and agricultural land, the area of ocean necessary for production of marine ingredients required for one ton of for L. vannamei species is 6.5 ha, and the area of land necessary for production of terrestrial crop ingredient is 0.5 ha. The overall feed footprint is 7.0 ha/ton of farmed fish. This results in a final Factor 5.3 score of 7 out of 10.
Conclusions and Final score Although robust data from feed companies in Nicaragua was not available, the information available in the 2018 ASC audit report on feeds from the same companies is considered to be a useful reflection on the country as a whole. As such, the FFER is calculated to be 0.69 for fishmeal, and there is an estimated net loss of 55.8% of edible protein inputs. The associated feed footprint is estimated to be 7.0 ha/ton of combined ocean and land areas. Overall the three factors combine to give a final Criterion C5 – Feed numerical score of 6.2 out of 10.
Criterion 6: Escapes
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: competition, genetic loss, predation, habitat damage, spawning disruption, and other impacts on wild fish and ecosystems resulting from the escape of native, non‐native and/or genetically distinct fish or other unintended species from aquaculture operations . Sustainability unit: affected ecosystems and/or associated wild populations. . Principle: preventing population‐level impacts to wild species or other ecosystem‐level impacts from farm escapes.
Criterion 6 Summary Escape parameters Value Score F6.1 System escape risk 2 F6.1 Recapture adjustment 0 F6.1 Final escape risk score 2 F6.2 Invasiveness 4 C6 Escape Final Score (0‐10) 3 Critical? NO RED
Brief Summary Shrimp can escape from ponds during daily water exchanges and specific events such as harvest. In addition, the area is prone to flooding in peak rainy seasons; the destruction of a quarter of the shrimp ponds in Nicaragua during Hurricane Mitch in 1998 highlighted the storm and flood risk. The large majority of production in Nicaragua is considered to be based on multi‐ generation selectively‐bred broodstock with genetic and phenotypic differentiation from wild shrimp populations. Therefore, although the risk of genetic introgression to the genetically diverse wild populations is perhaps low, the high escape risk means that when Factors 6.1 and 6.2 are combined, the final score Criterion 6 – Escapes is 3 out of 10.
40 Justification of Rating L. vannamei is native to the Nicaraguan coast (FAO 2006), and the escape of genetically distinct shrimp from farms will result in some genetic interactions with the wild populations. This criterion assesses the risk of escape and the “invasiveness” of the escaping stock.
Factor 6.1. Escape risk There is an inherent risk of escape in pond‐based shrimp aquaculture due to the exchange of pond water with the surrounding waterbody during daily operations (and during harvest if ponds are drained), and due to flooding when ponds are constructed in low elevation and/or storm prone areas. As noted previously, the large majority of shrimp farms in Nicaragua operate on a semi‐intensive basis with a daily water exchange considered to be approximately 4%. It is not currently known if ponds are drained at harvest and what measures—if any are taken—are used to prevent escapes; now‐dated references such as Sonnenholzner et al. (2002) and Cato et al. (2005) indicate that they were drained at harvest, but it is not known if this is still the case. The Nicaraguan BAP Manual (MAGFOR 2008) recommends to: “Install screens in the ponds to prevent the escape of shrimp to the environment and to prevent genetic contamination if there is domestication.”
Sasa et al. (2015) and SINIA18 (within MARENA) note that the Estero Real river occasionally floods during the peak of the rainy season, and one of the most significant impacts to the industry in Nicaragua was Hurricane Mitch, which destroyed approximately 25% of the ponds in October 1998. It seems likely that large amounts of shrimp would have escaped at that time. While Hurricane Mitch was clearly an exceptional event, tropical storm Alma also made landfall in Nicaragua in 2008, and MARENA (2011) initiated a project to reduce the risk of increased flooding (and drought) in the area due to climate change.
Due to the flood risk, the industry is still considered to be vulnerable to large escapes, resulting in a final Escape Risk score of 2 out of 10 for Factor 6.1.
Factor 6.2. Invasiveness INPESCA (2009) and FAO (2010) reported that only 75% of semi‐intensive producers in Nicaragua sourced seed from hatcheries in the late 2000s (the alternative being the active capture of wild juveniles with nets or the passive inflow of wild juveniles when filling ponds). Although this number may have increased since then due to prohibitions of small mesh fishing for juveniles, the disease risks of wild shrimp, and due to advancements in selective breeding and maturity of the industry (see Criterion 8X – Source of Stock), there is no robust evidence available from the industry to demonstrate so. For the purposes of this criterion, the same ratio is considered to be used (75% hatchery, 25% wild) at present.
Regarding the genetic differences between wild shrimp and farmed shrimp, though domestication of L. vannamei is advanced in many Central American countries, Doyle (2016)
18 http://www.sinia.net.ni/multisites/NodoSINAP/index.php/sinap/areasprotegidas?layout=edit&id=17 41 estimated that 50 % of the Nicaraguan hatcheries are “copy hatcheries,” which use laboratory bred shrimps intended for growout as brood stock without authorization or knowledge of their biological relatedness or inbreeding status; this results in inbred offspring with reduced fitness. Beyond this, there is limited availability of information on the domestication of L. vannamei in Nicaragua. Cato et al. (2005) noted that all the larvae used in the early 2000s was from wild caught sources, so hatcheries and selective breeding must have commenced after this time. It is of interest to note that there are no “specific pathogen free” (SPF) or “specific pathogen resistant” (SPR) strains available in Nicaragua (ASC 2018) and this is a further indication of a limited domestication program.
It is acknowledged that any domestication of wild animals results in a decline of genetic variability in the cultured population due to the selection for desirable production traits (e.g., Vela Avitúa et al. 2013), and therefore any escaping farmed shrimp are likely to be genetically differentiated from wild conspecifics. The potential ecological impact of farm escapes to those wild populations is challenging to determine.
L. vannamei is native to the Pacific coastlines of Central America and northern South America (FAO 2006). Although studies on the species’ genetic diversity are able to identify subpopulations along the coast, they note that while genetic diversity is high in any one location, there was a lack of a specific geographical pattern and a low differentiation (i.e., genetic homogeneity) among estuaries (Perez‐Enriquez et al. 2018) (Valles‐Jimminez and Perez‐ Enriquez 2004). Therefore, given the high genetic diversity in the wild population as a whole plus the lack of highly discrete subpopulations (e.g., compared to salmon in which genetic introgression from escapes into highly‐discrete genetic subpopulations is a high concern (Glover et al. 2017), the potential for genetic introgression of farm shrimp escapes seems limited.
Overall, any escaping shrimp (other than the 25% of stocks sourced from wild juveniles) are considered to be domesticated, probably for multiple generations, and therefore genetically discernable and to some extent genetically differentiated from the wild stocks. This indicates an initial invasiveness score (Factor 6.2) of 2 out of 10; however, the potential impact to the more genetically diverse wild L. vannamei populations along the Central American coast seems limited (in addition to the partial use of wild juveniles); thus, the score is increased to 4 out of 10, which is considered to be equivalent to three generations of selective breeding in the Seafood Watch Standard. Therefore, the score for Factor 6.2 – Invasiveness is 4 out of 10.
Conclusions and final score The risk of escape is considered to be high based on the water exchange rates and the flood/storm risk. The majority of production is considered to be based on multiple generations of domesticated broodstock with genetic and phenotypic differentiation from wild shrimp populations. Therefore, although the risk of genetic introgression to the genetically diverse wild populations is perhaps low, the high escape risk means that when Factors 6.1 and 6.2 are combined, the final score Criterion 6 – Escapes is 3 out of 10.
42 Criterion 7: Disease; pathogen and parasite interactions
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: amplification of local pathogens and parasites on fish farms and their retransmission to local wild species that share the same water body . Sustainability unit: wild populations susceptible to elevated levels of pathogens and parasites. . Principle: preventing population‐level impacts to wild species through the amplification and retransmission, or increased virulence of pathogens or parasites.
Criterion 7 Summary Disease Risk‐based assessment Pathogen and parasite parameters Score C7 Disease Score (0‐10) 4 Critical? NO YELLOW
Brief Summary Shrimp farming globally, including Nicaragua, has suffered a series of bacterial and viral disease outbreaks, causing serious economic challenges for the industry. No recent data on routine disease monitoring could be obtained from Nicaragua, but now‐dated information shows a wide range of pathogens have been reported, with the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), necrotizing hepatopancreatitis (NHP), and bacterial vibrioisis being the most common. Recent anecdotal evidence shows that emerging global shrimp pathogens, such as early mortality syndrome (EMS), are also present in Nicaragua. There is no evidence of impacts of farmed shrimp diseases affecting wild shrimp populations in Nicaragua, but examples of disease transmission can be found elsewhere (e.g., in Mexico). With limited information, the Seafood Watch Risk Assessment was used, and based on the open nature of the production system, which remains vulnerable to the introduction, amplification and discharge of pathogens, the final score for Criterion 7 – Disease is 4 out of 10.
Justification of Rating
Shrimp farming globally has experienced a series of bacterial and viral disease outbreaks, causing serious economic challenges for the industry. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) lists major diseases affecting farmed L. vannamei and advice to control and avoid them. These diseases are the white spot syndrome virus (WSSV), yellow head virus (YHV), Taura syndrome virus (TSV), infectious myonecrosis virus (IMNV), necrotizing hepatopancreatitis (NHP), and infectious hypoderma and haematopoietic necrosis virus (IHHNV) (World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) 2013).
Figure 12 shows a wide range of pathogens reported in Nicaraguan shrimp farms in approximately 2010 (FAO 2010). The dominant three are WSSV, NHP, and bacterial vibriosis.
43 Figure 13: The most common diseases reported in Nicaraguan shrimp farms in approximately 2010. The graph is intended to demonstrate the variety of pathogens and full translation is not provided; however, the dominant diseases are WSSV (dark blue – 24.24%), NHP (pale blue – 13.64%), Vibriosis (pale green – 30.31%). Graph copied from FAO (2010).
No detailed routine disease monitoring information could be found in Nicaragua. Efforts to contact INPESCA were unsuccessful, as were efforts to contact shrimp farming companies.
Historically, the introduction of the WSSV in 1999 caused large shrimp mortalities in Nicaragua (75 percent of the production) (Cato et al. 2005). Since then, measures were taken to better prepare the ponds and water and reduce water exchange during grow‐out, but despite these measures, the WSSV still occurred at least until 2011 (Soledad et al. 2011). Other circumstantial information shows Nicaragua and neighboring Honduras are two countries where farmed shrimp have tested positive for early mortality syndrome (EMS) (Whittaker 2015).
Nicaragua’s BMP Manual (MAGFOR 2008) was initiated to encourage sanitary improvements for all shrimp farms, and in 2013, trainings and workshops on early mortality syndrome (EMS) were organized by INPESCA (OIRSA 2013). More recently, the International Regional Organization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA) also organized trainings and monitoring programs in Nicaragua focusing on the necrotizing hepatopancreatitis (NHP) as a major cause of EMS (OIRSA 2016).
44 Despite clear evidence of pathogens and disease occurrences on farms in Nicaragua, there is very little evidence of potential impacts to wild shrimp populations from their transmission. In order to reduce the introduction of pathogens, it is common to reduce water exchange, and now‐dated information shows that traditional semi‐intensive shrimp ponds in Nicaragua had been managed with zero water exchange through the dry season to avoid introduction of WSSV (Cummings 2001); however, as stated in previous criteria in this assessment, the current water exchange is uncertain but considered to be 4% per day based on ASC audit reports. Therefore, the potential for the amplification and transmission of shrimp pathogens from farms to wild shrimp populations exists.
The only demonstrated impact to wild shrimp is from the 1990s when an IHHNV outbreak resulted in significant losses in both farms and wild fisheries for the blue shrimp, P. stylirostris (Lightner 2011). More recently, pathogens occurring in (and perhaps originating in) shrimp farms have been found in wild shrimp; for example, the presence of NHP in wild shrimp was confirmed in Mexico (Aguirre‐Guzmán et al. 2010) as well as the occurrence of WSSV and NHP in wild shrimp (L. setiferus and F. aztecus) of the San Andrés Lagoon (Sauceda and Martínez 2016). Recently occurring pathogens may yet transfer to wild species; for example the decapod penstyldensovirus (PstDV1) is a widely‐spread shrimp pathogen that causes high mortalities in the shrimp P. stylirostris; in L. vannamei, it has been associated with induction of the runt deformity syndrome, and a high overall prevalence of PstDV1 (49.5 %) in shrimp PL from hatcheries was found (Mendoza‐Cano and Enríquez‐Espinoza 2016).
Conclusions and Final score Although disease is considered to be a significant production problem in shrimp farming, and pathogens will be discharged to external waterbodies during water exchanges, there is no concrete evidence of impacts from farmed shrimp diseases on wild shrimp populations in Nicaragua. Therefore, the Seafood Watch Risk‐Based Assessment was used in this case. As the production system is open to the introduction and discharge of pathogens, the final numerical score for Criterion 7 – Disease is 4 out of 10.
Criterion 8X: Source of Stock – independence from wild fisheries
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: the removal of fish from wild populations for on‐growing to harvest size in farms . Sustainability unit: wild fish populations . Principle: using eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced from farm‐raised brood stocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture.
45 This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact
Criterion 8X Summary Source of stock parameters Score C8 Independence from unsustainable wild fisheries (0‐10) –2 Critical? NO GREEN
Brief Summary Dated information from 2009 to 2010 shows that while 100% of artisanal and extensive producers used wild‐caught juveniles (potentially from both passive and active collection), 75% of semi intensive producers at that time used captive‐bred sources. Although the use of hatchery postlarvae may have increased since then, a 2013 report confirmed some ongoing use of wild juveniles. As the 2009–2010 figure of 25% wild juveniles is the only available figure on the source of juveniles used in the semi‐intensive farms (i.e., the farms that are most likely to export to the U.S.), this value is used here and the final score for Criterion 8X is a deduction of ‐ 2 out of –10.
Justification of Rating No current information on the use of captive‐bred broodstock, postlarvae, or juveniles could be found, and efforts to contact INPESCA and shrimp producers were unsuccessful. Although now dated, information from 2009 to 2010 show that although 100% of artisanal and extensive producers used wild‐caught juveniles (potentially from both passive19 and active collection), 75% of semi intensive producers used captive bred hatchery sources (INPESCA 2009) (FAO 2010). The Nicaraguan BAP Manual (MAGFOR 2008) recommends: “Domesticated broodstock should be used as sources of larvae to improve biosecurity, reduce the incidence of diseases and increase production while reducing the pressure on wild populations. The use of domesticated shrimp allows to develop genetic selection program for better growth and resistance to diseases.” Nevertheless, Soto et al. (2013) reported that wild shrimp postlarvae continue to be utilized (note the type of system is not specified) because of their apparent hardiness and relatively low price, although the threat of disease is increasingly reducing such a practice.
The use of hatchery‐produced postlarvae may have increased since these reports were published due to prohibitions of small mesh fishing for juveniles (Regulation No. 489), the disease risks of stocking wild shrimp, and due to general advancements in selective breeding (e.g. Doyle 2016); however, there is no information with which to confirm it.
Conclusions and Final score
19 Note the passive collection of wild juvenile shrimp while filling ponds or during water exchanges is not penalized in the Seafood Watch Aquaculture Standard. 46 On a precautionary basis, the industry is still considered to be using 25% wild juveniles, and the final score for Criterion 8X – Source of Stock is a deduction of –2 out of –10.
Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: mortality of predators or other wildlife caused or contributed to by farming operations . Sustainability unit: wildlife or predator populations . Principle: aquaculture populations pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wildlife or predator populations that may interact with farm sites.
This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score. A score of zero means there is no impact.
Criterion 9X Summary Wildlife and predator mortality parameters Score C9X Wildlife and predator mortality Final Score (0‐10) –4 Critical? NO YELLOW
Brief Summary Shrimp ponds attract a variety of predators, particularly birds, but no specific data on predator mortalities in Nicaragua were found. A list of relevant local species in the ASC audit reports included several species of birds, but they were all listed as “Least Concern” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This gives some confidence that any mortalities are unlikely to significantly impact the species’ population sizes, and the final score for Criterion 9X – Predator and Wildlife Mortalities is –4 out of –10.
Justification of Rating No specific data were found on predator mortalities, and efforts to contact INPESCA and shrimp producers were unsuccessful. Nicaragua’s BAP manual (MAGFOR 2008) recommends non‐lethal non‐toxic methods (such as flashing lights or noise) to scare birds and other predators away from ponds, in addition to barriers such as netting and screens. The ASC audit report (ASC 2018) notes that, other than crabs, mollusks, shrimp and fish that are controlled by screens on water inlets, the primary wildlife interactions are with a variety of resident and migratory birds, all of which are listed as “Least Concern” by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN):
Blue Heron, Ardea Herodias Common Heron, Ardea alba
47 Pink Heron, Platalea ajaja Fisher eagle, Pandion haliaetus Crab bald eagle, Buteogallus anthracinus Tiny tailed hawk, Buteo barchyrus Piche, Dendrocygna autumnalis Playerito, Calidris minutila Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus
No other wildlife types or species were mentioned in the ASC audit report. Morales et al. (2014) confirm the high importance of the Estero Real wetlands for migratory and resident birds, noting that the area is designated as “important” according to Birdlife International and qualifying as a Shorebird Reserve of hemispheric importance according to the criteria of the Western Hemispheric Network of Shorebird Reserves (WHNSR).20 Interestingly, the species of greatest importance listed by WHNSR21 (Wilson's Plover – Charadrius wilsonia, Whimbrel – Numenius phaeopus, and Semipalmated Sandpiper – Calidris pusilla), are not mentioned in the ASC audit list. This may be due to their seasonal occurrence during overwintering. These species are also listed as “Least Concern” by the IUCN.
Morales et al. (2014) state that the areas of greatest concentration for birds are under the direct influence of thousands of hectares of shrimp farming activities that directly influence the feeding habitat and refuge of shorebirds. The same study observed that large numbers of birds rested on the pond dykes during high tide periods. Although the WHNSR states “We are actively engaging shrimp farmers to implement best management practices to improve shorebird habitat.” There is no indication that the interactions between birds and shrimp farms result in substantial direct mortalities due to deterrents, controls, accidental entanglements, or other encounters.
On a precautionary basis without data, it is assumed that some mortalities take place, but the “Least Concern” listing of key species gives some confidence that they do not significantly impact the species’ population sizes. Therefore, the final score for Criterion 9X – Predator and Wildlife Mortalities is –4 out of –10.
Criterion 10X: Escape of secondary species
Impact, unit of sustainability and principle . Impact: movement of live animals resulting in introduction of unintended species . Sustainability unit: wild native populations
20 https://www.manomet.org/project/western‐hemisphere‐shorebird‐reserve‐network‐whsrn/ 21 https://www.whsrn.org/delta‐del‐estero‐real 48 . Impact: aquaculture operations by design, management or regulation avoid reliance on the movement of live animals, therefore reducing the risk of introduction of unintended species.
This is an “exceptional” criterion that may not apply in many circumstances. It generates a negative score that is deducted from the overall final score.
Criterion 10X Summary Escape of secondary species parameters Score F10Xa International or trans‐waterbody live animal shipments (%) 0 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination n/a C10X Escape of secondary species Final Score 0.00 GREEN
Brief Summary No data were available on live shrimp importations, and though it is also possible that there is some international exchange of broodstock or postlarvae with neighboring Honduras, these regions share the same waterbody in the Gulf of Fonseca. Therefore, trans‐waterbody shipments of live animals that risk the unintentional introduction of non‐native species are not currently considered to be significant. The final score for Criterion 10X – Escape of Secondary Species is a deduction of 0 out of –10.
Justification of Rating It is clear, historically, that various shrimp pathogens have been introduced into Nicaragua, most likely during movements of live shrimp, for example, the introduction of WSSV in 1999 (Cato et al. 2005). No data could be found on current live animal importations, but though it is possible that some broodstock continue to be imported into Nicaragua for breeding programs, these would be considered to come from specialist breeding facilities with high biosecurity.
And although it is also possible that there is some international exchange of broodstock or postlarvae with neighboring Honduras, these regions share the same waterbody in the Gulf of Fonseca. Therefore, trans‐waterbody shipments of live animals that risk the unintentional introduction of non‐native species are not currently considered to be significant. The score for factor 10Xa is therefore 10 of 10, and Factor 10Xb is not necessary to complete. The final score for Criterion 10X – Escape of Secondary Species is a deduction of 0 out of –10.
49 Acknowledgements
Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Peter Bridson, as well as several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.
50
References
ASC. 2018. Aquaculture Stewardship Council ‐ Audit report ‐ Aquacultura Torrecillas I & II ‐ Groupo Deli SeaJoy. 12 March 2018. www.asc.com. http://asc.force.com/Certificates/servlet/servlet.FileDownload?retURL=%2FCertificates%2 Fapex%2FASCCertDetails2%3Fid%3Da0124000008Rwn3AAC&file=00P1o00000v9FNGEA2 BAP, 2016. Aquaculture Facility Certification Finfish and Crustacean ‐ Farms Best Aquaculture Practices Certification Standards, Guidelines Aquaculture Standard (FCFS). BAP finfish/Crustaceam Farm Standards, (2), pp.1–25. Benessaiah, K., 2008. Mangroves, schrimp aquaculture and coastal livelihoods in the Estero Real, gulf of Fonseca, Nicaragua. McGill University Montreal, Quebec. Benessaiah, K. & Sengupta, R., 2014a. How is shrimp aquaculture transforming coastal livelihoods and lagoons in Estero Real, Nicaragua?: The need to integrate social‐ecological research and ecosystem‐based approaches. Environmental Management, 54(2), pp.162– 179. Benessaiah, K. & Sengupta, R., 2014b. How is shrimp aquaculture transforming coastal livelihoods and lagoons in Estero Real, Nicaragua? The need to integrate social‐ecological research and ecosystem‐based approaches. Environmental Management, 54(2), pp.162– 179. Bruschi, P. et al., 2014. Genetic and morphological variation of Rhizophora mangle (red mangrove) along the northern Pacific coast of Nicaragua. Nordic Journal of Botany, 32(3), pp.320–329. Carvalho, F.P. et al., 1999. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Coastal Lagoons of the Pacific Coast of Nicaragua. Castañeda, J., 2001. Shrimp Production &Feed Management Improved Techniques Make Difference in Nicaragua. The Advocate. CATIE/IUCN. 1990. Wise use of mangrove resources in Estero Real, NIcaragua and Terraba Sierpe, COsta Rica. A proposal submitted by CATIE/IUCN to DANDA. http://orton.catie.ac.cr/repdoc/A6484i/A6484i.pdf Cato, J., Otwell, W. & Coze Saborio, A., 2005. Nicaragua’s shrimp subsector: Developing a production capacity and export market during rapidly changing worldwide safety and quality regulations, Chávez, K., 2015. Nicaragua potencia desarrollo de granjas camaroneras. el19digital. Cummings, G., 2001. Shrimp Farming in Nicaragua: Sahlman Seafoods Farm “Pushes Envelope” to Deal. del Carmen Bermúdez‐Almada, M., Espinosa‐Plascencia, A., Santiago‐Hernández, M.L., Barajas‐ Borgo, C.J. and Acedo‐Félix, E., 2014. COMPORTAMIENTO DE OXITETRACICLINA EN CAMARÓN DE CULTIVO Litopenaeus vannamei Y LA SENSIBILIDAD A TRES ANTIBIOTICOS DE BACTERIAS DE Vibrio AISLADAS DE LOS ORGANISMOS. Biotecnia, 16(3), pp.29‐37. DG‐SANCO. 2014. Final Report of an Audit Carried Out in Nicaragua From 05 to 16 May 2014 In Order To Evaluate the Control of Residues and Contaminants in Live Animals And Animal Products Including Controls on Veterinary Medicinal Products. European Commision. DG(SANCO) 2014‐7034‐FINAL.
51
Doyle, R.W., 2016. Inbreeding and disease in tropical shrimp aquaculture: a reappraisal and caution. Aquaculture Research, 47(1), pp.21–35. FAO. 2001. ‐ TORRY ADVISORY NOTE, Handling and Processing Shrimp, TORRY ADVISORY NOTE No.54. FAO. 2005. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Nicaragua. National Aquaculture Sector Overview Fact Sheets. Text by Saborio Coze, A. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 1 February 2005. [Cited 11 September 2018]. FAO. 2006. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Penaeus vannamei. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 7 April 2006. FAO. 2007. The world’s mangroves: 1980–2005. FAO Forestry Paper. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome FAO, p.153. FAO. 2010. Camaronicultura en el Estero Real. Presentation in FAO. Informe del Taller sobre la evaluación ambiental del estero real y estimación de su capacidad de carga. FAO Informe de Pesca y Acuicultura No. 994/2. Roma, FAO. 2012. 19 pp. FAO. 2012. Informe del Taller sobre la evaluación ambiental del estero real y estimación de su capacidad de carga. FAO Informe de Pesca y Acuicultura No. 994/2. Roma, FAO. 2012. FAO. 2014. Informe del Taller de validación del “Plan de gestión colaborativa de la pesca y la acuicultura con enfoque ecosistémico, en el Estero Real”. FAO Informe de Pesca y Acuicultura No. 994/3. Roma. 52 pp. FAO, 2016. Fisheries and aquaculture software. FishStatJ ‐ software for fishery statistical time series. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 21 June 2016. FAO, 2017. National Aquaculture Sector Overview ‐ Nicaragua. Accessed August 2017. http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_nicaragua/en GlobalG.A.P., 2016. Integrated Fram Assurance ‐ Aquaculture Module. GlobalG.A.P., 2014. Nicaragua’s First GLOBALG.A.P. Aquaculture Certification ‐ Camanica of Pescanova Group. Globalgap.com. Glover KA, Solberg MF, McGinnity P, et al. 2017. Half a century of genetic interaction between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon: Status of knowledge and unanswered questions. Fish Fish. 2017;00:1–38. Gutiérrez, R. & Sánchez, G.R., 2007. Diagnostico de la actividad pesquera artesanal en el Estero Real, INPESCA, 2016. Anuario pesquero y acuicola de nicaragua, 2015. http://www.inpesca.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid= 100 INPESCA, 2009. Carta de acuerdo, INPESCA. 2010. “Evaluación Estado Ambiental del Estero Real y estimación de la capacidad de carga: Mejorando capacidades nacionales”. Instituto Nicaraguense de la Pesca y Acuicultura (Inpesca) Chinandega, Nicaragua. 25 ‐ 27 de Agosot de 2010. Janzen, D. H. 1988. Tropical dry forest: The most endangered major tropical ecosystem. In: Biodiversity. E. O. WILSON (ed.): 130‐137. National Academy, Washington, U.S.A. Lugo, A., 2002. Conserving Latin American and Caribbean man‐ groves: issues and challenges. Madera y Bosques Numero especial, pp.5–25. MAGFOR, 2008. Manual genral de buenas practicas acuicolas, Preparado por:
52
PAICEPAN/COMPONENTE CAMARÓN. Código 3.3.1. Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal Martinez‐Alier, J., 2001. “Ecological Conflicts and Valuation: Mangroves Versus Shrimps in the Late 1990s.” Environment and Planning C‐Government and Policy, 19(5), pp.713–728. Martinez, S., 2016. Están acabando con los manglares. La Prensa. Mendoza‐Cano, F. & Enríquez‐Espinoza, T., 2016. High Occurrence of the Decapod Penstyldensovirus (PstDV1) Detected in Postlarvae of Penaeus vannamei Produced in Commercial Hatcheries of Mexico. EcoHealth. Mestre Montserrat, M. et al., 2011. Conflictos socio‐ambientales de la acuicultura del camarón en Centroamérica : un análisis desde la justicia ambiental, Fundación Ent. Morales Toruño, G.E. and Cortez Vanegas, R.D.L.Á., 2015. Efecto de dos dietas: comercial 25% de proteína experimental 20% de proteína más melaza, sobre el crecimiento de los camarones juveniles Litopenaeus vannamei en sistema semi‐intensivo (Doctoral dissertation). Morales, S., Jarquín, O., Vallecillo, M. 2014.Censo de aves playeras – Delta Estero Real, Nicaragua. Informe de Resultados 2014. Bird Life International Moreno, O., 2001. Methods for Improving Shrimp Farming in Central America. Managua, UCA press. Nat Geo (2007). Forests of the Tide. Kennedy Warne (photographs by Tim Laman). National Geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/index.html)Volume 211, Number 2, Page 132, February 2007. Accessed by subscription. Núñez‐Ferrera M (2003) Propuesta de ordenamiento del concesionamiento de tierras salitrosas para establecimiento de granjas camaroneras en el pacifico nicaragüense. Ministerio de Fomento, Industria y Comercio, Dirección General de Recursos Naturales (PASMA‐MIFIC), Managua OIRSA, 2013. Actividades del organismo internacional regional de sanidad agropecuaria (oirsa) en relación con el acuerdo sobre la aplicación de medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias de la omc informe, OIRSA, 2016. Programa regional de vigilancia epidemiologica, Olivas, R., 2013. Chinandega producirá más camarones. Elnuevodiario. Paez‐Osuna, F., 2001. “The Environmental Impact of Shrimp Aquaculture: A Global Perspective.” Environmental Pollution, 112, p.229–231. Perez‐Enriquez, R., Millán‐Márquez, A.M., Cruz‐Hernández, P. and Saucedo‐Barrón, C.J., 2018. Genética poblacional de camarón blanco Litopenaeus vannamei en Sinaloa, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 89(1). Pescanova, 2010. Vannamei Shrimp ‐ Pescanova group report, Polidoro, B.A. et al., 2014. Global patterns of mangrove extinction risk : implications for ecosystem services and biodiversity loss. Coastal. Ramsar (2000) Ficha informativa: Deltas del Estero Real y llanos de Apacunca. Universidad Centroamericana (UCA), PROGOLFO‐Nicaragua, CATIE/OLAFO/DANIDA, Proyecto Corredor Biologico Mesoamericano (CBM), MARENA Rivas, R.L., 2013. Producción de camarones en desarrollo y bajo buenas prácticas de manejo. el19digital.
53
Santiago, M.L., Espinosa, A. and Bermúdez, M.D.C., 2009. Uso de antibióticos en la camaronicultura. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Farmacéuticas, 40(3). Sauceda, M. & Martínez, J., 2016. White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) and Necrotizing Hepatopancreatitis (NHP) detection in wild shrimp of the San Andrés Lagoon, Mexico. Revista de biología. Sirias, C.H., Chamorro, F.J.C. and González, E.M., 2014. Elaboración de probiótico a base de suero de leche de vaca, para combatir infecciones de Vibrios sp., en camarones Litopenaeus vannamei, de forma experimental. Universitas (León). Revista Científica de la UNAN‐León., 5(2), pp.52‐59. Soares, M., Chaves, F., Estrada, G.,, Fernandez, V. (2017). Mangrove forests associated with salt flats: a case study from southeast Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, 65(2), 102‐ 115. Soledad, M. et al., 2011. Prevalencia de enfermedades de camaron blanco (Litopenaeus vannamei) cultivado en ocho regiones de Latinoamerica. Revista Cientifica de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias de la Universidad del Zulia, 21(5), pp.434–446. Soto, D. et al., 2013. Addressing aquaculture‐fisheries interactions through the implementation of the ecosystem approach to aquaculture (EAA). Proceedings of the global conference on aquaculture 2010. farming the waters for people and food, (September 2015), pp.385–436. Tacon, A.G. & Metian, M., 2008. Global overview on the use of fish meal and fish oil in industrially compounded aquafeeds: trends and future prospects. Aquaculture, 285(1), pp.146–158. Tacon, A.G.J., 2002. Thematic Review of Feeds and Feed Management Practices in Shrimp Aquaculture. , p.69. Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R. & Metian, M., 2011. Demand and supply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans : Trends and prospects, Tucker, C.S. & Hargreaves A., 2008. Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture ‐ Google Livres, UCA‐MARENA, 2001. Ficha RAMSAR del Estero Real. Grupos de Humedales de Nicaragua – MARENA. Managua, Nicaragua. , p.55. USDA ERS 2018. Aquaculture Trade Data. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/aquaculture‐data/ Valiela, I., Bowen, J.L. & York, J.K., 2001. “Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened Major Tropical Environments.” BioScience, 51(10), pp.807–815. Valles‐Jimenez R1, Cruz P, Perez‐Enriquez R. 2004. Population genetic structure of Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) from Mexico to Panama: microsatellite DNA variation. Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2004 Sep‐Oct;6(5):475‐84. Epub 2004 Aug 24. Vásquez DP, Méndez M, Martínez R (2005) Informe de evaluación y ordenación de recursos pesqueros en el golfo de Fonseca, Honduras. Cooperación Española (AECI) y DIGEPESCA Vela Avitúa, S., Montaldo, H., Márquez Valdelamar, L., Campos M., Gabriel R, & Castillo Juárez, H. (2013). Decline of genetic variability in a captive population of Pacific white shrimp Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei using microsatellite and pedigree information. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 16(4), 9. https://dx.doi.org/10.2225/vol16‐issue4‐fulltext‐11 Walters, B. et al., 2008. Ethnobiology, socio‐economics and management of mangrove forests: a review. Aquat Bot, 89(2), pp.220–236.
54
Whittaker, M. 2015. Sources: Honduras, Nicaragua are Central American nations afflicted with EMS. Undercurrent News. Wittenstein, P., 2007. Aquaculture as a means to improve social and economic conditions in Nicaragua. University of Rhode Island, Kingston. WHO (2017). "Critically important antimicrobials for human medicine. 5th revision ‐ 2017." World Health Organization. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), 2013. OIE Listed diseases. Retrieved 10/11/2016, from www.oie.int/en/animal‐health‐in‐the‐world/oie‐listed‐diseases‐2016.
55
About Seafood Watch®
Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild‐caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild‐caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long‐term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science‐based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.
Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid”. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer‐reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.
Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1‐877‐229‐9990.
Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
56
Guiding Principles
Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished22 or farmed that can maintain or increase production in the long‐term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.
The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that aquaculture must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:
Seafood Watch will: Support data transparency and therefore aquaculture producers or industries that make information and data on production practices and their impacts available to relevant stakeholders. Promote aquaculture production that minimizes or avoids the discharge of wastes at the farm level in combination with an effective management or regulatory system to control the location, scale and cumulative impacts of the industry’s waste discharges beyond the immediate vicinity of the farm. Promote aquaculture production at locations, scales and intensities that cumulatively maintain the functionality of ecologically valuable habitats without unreasonably penalizing historic habitat damage. Promote aquaculture production that by design, management or regulation avoids the use and discharge of chemicals toxic to aquatic life, and/or effectively controls the frequency, risk of environmental impact and risk to human health of their use Within the typically limited data availability, use understandable quantitative and relative indicators to recognize the global impacts of feed production and the efficiency of conversion of feed ingredients to farmed seafood. Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild fish or shellfish populations through competition, habitat damage, genetic introgression, hybridization, spawning disruption, changes in trophic structure or other impacts associated with the escape of farmed fish or other unintentionally introduced species. Promote aquaculture operations that pose no substantial risk of deleterious effects to wild populations through the amplification and retransmission of pathogens or parasites. Promote the use of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish produced in hatcheries using domesticated brood stocks thereby avoiding the need for wild capture Recognize that energy use varies greatly among different production systems and can be a major impact category for some aquaculture operations, and also recognize that improving
22 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
57
practices for some criteria may lead to more energy intensive production systems (e.g. promoting more energy‐intensive closed recirculation systems)
Once a score and rating has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ratings and the overall recommendation are color‐coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:
Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.
Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed.
Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.
Appendix 1 – Example of recent dry forest conversion
58
Figure 14: Image taken in 2014, copied from Google Earth.
59
Figure 15: Image taken in 2016, copied from Google Earth.
60
Appendix 1 ‐ Data points and all scoring calculations
Criterion 1: Data quality and availability Data Category Data Quality (0‐10) Industry or production statistics 7.5 Management 2.5 Effluent 2.5 Habitats 5 Chemical use 2.5 Feed 5 Escapes 5 Disease 5 Source of stock 2.5 Predators and wildlife 2.5 Secondary species 2.5 Other – (e.g., GHG emissions) n/a Total 42.5
C1 Data Final Score (0‐10) 3.9 YELLOW
Criterion 2: Effluents Factor 2.1 ‐ Biological waste production and discharge Factor 2.1a ‐ Biological waste production Protein content of feed (%) 30 eFCR 1.56 Fertilizer N input (kg N/ton fish) 17.36 Protein content of harvested fish (%) 17.8 N content factor (fixed) 0.16 N input per ton of fish produced (kg) 95.98 N in each ton of fish harvested (kg) 28.48 Waste N produced per ton of fish (kg) 67.50
Factor 2.1b ‐ Production System discharge Basic production system score 0.51 Adjustment 1 (if applicable) –0.2 Adjustment 2 (if applicable) 0 Adjustment 3 (if applicable) 0 Discharge (Factor 2.1b) score (0‐1) 0.31 # % of the waste produced by the fish is discharged from the farm
61
Factor 2.1 Score ‐ Waste discharge score Waste discharged per ton of production (kg N ton‐1) 20.93 Waste discharge score (0‐10) 7
Factor 2.2 – Management of farm‐level and cumulative effluent impacts 2.2a Content of effluent management measure 2 2.2b Enforcement of effluent management measures 1 2.2 Effluent management effectiveness 0.8
C2 Effluent Final Score (0‐10) 4.00 YELLOW Critical? NO
Criterion 3: Habitat Factor 3.1. Habitat conversion and function F3.1 Score (0‐10) 0
Factor 3.2 – Management of farm‐level and cumulative habitat impacts 3.2a Content of habiat management measure 2 3.2b Enforcement of habitat management measures 1 3.2 Habitat management effectiveness 0.8
C3 Habitat Final Score (0‐10) 0 RED Critical? YES
Criterion 4: Evidence or Risk of Chemical Use Chemical Use parameters Score C4 Chemical Use Score (0‐10) 0 C4 Chemical Use Final Score (0‐10) 0 RED Critical? NO
Criterion 5: Feed 5.1. Wild Fish Use Feed parameters Score 5.1a Fish In : Fish Out (FIFO) Fishmeal inclusion level (%) 14.5 Fishmeal from by‐products (%) 31
62
% FM 10.005 Fish oil inclusion level (%) 1.5 Fish oil from by‐products (%) 100 % FO 0 Fishmeal yield (%) 22.5 Fish oil yield (%) 5 eFCR 1.56 FIFO fishmeal 0.69 FIFO fish oil 0.00 FIFO Score (0‐10) 8.27 Critical? NO 5.1b Susutainability of Source fisheries Sustainability score –10 Calculated sustainability adjustment –1.39 Critical? NO F5.1 Wild Fish Use Score (0‐10) 6.88 Critical? NO
5.2 Net protein Gain or Loss Protein INPUTS Protein content of feed (%) 30 eFCR 1.56 Feed protein from fishmeal (%) 32.14 Feed protein from EDIBLE sources (%) 90.04 Feed protein from NON‐EDIBLE sources (%) 9.96 Protein OUTPUTS Protein content of whole harvested fish (%) 17.8 Edible yield of harvested fish (%) 45 Use of non‐edible by‐products from harvested fish (%) 50 Total protein input kg/100kg fish 46.8 Edible protein IN kg/100kg fish 42.14 Utilized protein OUT kg/100kg fish 18.64 Net protein gain or loss (%) –55.76 Critical? NO F5.2 Net protein Score (0‐10) 4
63
5.3. Feed Footprint 5.3a Ocean Area appropriated per ton of seafood Inclusion level of aquatic feed ingredients (%) 16 eFCR 1.56 Carbon required for aquatic feed ingredients (ton C/ton fish) 69.7 Ocean productivity ( C) for continental shelf areas (ton C/ha) 2.68 Ocean area appropriated (ha/ton fish) 6.49 5.3b Land area appropriated per ton of seafood Inclusion level of crop feed ingredients (%) 84 Inclusion level of land animal products (%) 0 Conversion ratio of crop ingedients to land animal products 2.88 eFCR 1.56 Average yield of major feed ingredient crops (t/ha) 2.64 Land area appropriated (ha per ton of fish) 0.50 Total area (Ocean + Land Area) (ha) 6.99 F5.3 Feed Footprint Score (0‐10) 7
Feed Final Score C5 Feed Final Score (0‐10) 6.19 YELLOW Critical? NO
Criterion 6: Escapes 6.1a System escape Risk (0‐10) 2 6.1a Adjustment for recaptures (0‐10) 0 6.1a Escape Risk Score (0‐10) 2 6.2. Competitive and genetic interactions score (0‐10) 4 C6 Escapes Final Score (0‐10) 3 RED Critical? NO
Criterion 7: Diseases Disease Evidence‐based assessment (0‐10) 4 Disease Risk‐based assessment (0‐10) C7 Disease Final Score (0‐10) 4 YELLOW Critical? NO
Criterion 8X: Source of Stock C8X Source of stock score (0‐10) –2 C8 Source of stock Final Score (0‐10) –2 GREEN Critical? NO
64
Criterion 9X: Wildlife and predator mortalities C9X Wildlife and Predator Score (0‐10) –4 C9X Wildlife and Predator Final Score (0‐10) –4 YELLOW Critical? NO
Criterion 10X: Escape of secondary species F10Xa live animal shipments score (0‐10) 0.00 F10Xb Biosecurity of source/destination score (0‐10) 10.00 C10X Escape of secondary species Final Score (0‐10) 0.00 GREEN Critical? n/a
65